1951-11-07

LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege arising out of an article on the front page of today's Globe and Mail entitled "Denies Red Link Fired Avro Worker Asks Inquiry" by Wilfred List.
First, let me say that the facts as given are absolutely correct. Jackson did come to see me on October 4 and I immediately wrote to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) asking that an investigation be made as to the cause of this man's dismissal and that, further, he be given an opportunity to hear and refute the charges of subversive activity made against him. To this letter I received a reply on October 30 which took the form of a confidential letter to me. The import of this letter was a statement of policy on the matter which was not encouraging but did intimate that a recheck would be made. As this letter was confidential, I shall, of course, not quote it, but I think it is fair to say that there was no intimation that Jackson would be allowed to hear the case against him and have an opportunity of answering.
My first point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that, with the exception of the few remarks I have just made, I have informed no one of the contents of the confidential letter. I have been long enough in the security business myself to appreciate the importance of maintaining confidential information, despite the fact that there was nothing in the letter which I consider should have been so classified.
My second point of privilege, and this is not only privilege but a protest, is that this man suffered dismissal from his job and a stigma on his reputation without the opportunity of answering the charges. This, Mr. Speaker, seems to me to be such a destruction of the basic principles of freedom that I am bringing it to the attention of the house so that it may be stopped.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Fulton:: 

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Gibson:: 1.	What quantity of British Columbia canned salmon was purchased by the Department of National Defence in 1949-50, 1950-51?
2.	What varieties were purchased, in what quantK ties and at what prices?
3.	What firms supplied this salmon and what was, the value to each firm?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	1949-50, 2,548 cases; 1950-51, 4,425 cases.
2.	1949-50, 524 cases (48/1 lb.) cohoe at $23.50 per case; 21 cases (48/1 lb.) cohoe at $24.65 per case; 2003 cases (48/1 lb.) cohoe at $23.50 per case.
1950-51, 69 cases (48/1 lb.) cohoe at $28.40 per case; 1200 cases (96/J lb.) cohoe at $28.00 per case; 250 cases (48/1 lb.) cohoe at $27.50 per case; 100 cases (48/1 lb.) fancy pink at $19.96 per case; 2806 cases (48/1 lb.) sockeye. at $36.50 per case.
3.	1949-50, Canadian Fishing Co. Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., $7,828.50; B.C. Packers Ltd." Vancouver, B.C., $49,198.15; North Shore. Packing Co., Vancouver, B.C., $2,550.00; Cas-sair Packing Co., Vancouver, B.C., $433.50;-Nelson Bros. Fisheries Ltd., Vancouver, B C $940.00.	'
1950-51, Thomson Grocers Ltd., Toronto Ont., $3,955.00; J. H. Todd and Sons Ltd,!'

Questions
Victoria, B.C., $23,091.60; Francis Millerd and Co. Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., $6,875.00; B.C. Packers Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., $71,175.00; Nelson Brothers Fisheries Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., $7,300.00; Anderson and Miskin Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., $3,650.00; Anglo-B.C. Packing Co., Vancouver, B.C., $2,044.00.



CIVIL SERVICE PROMOTIONS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Since January 1, 1950, how many promotions from one grade to a higher grade have been made within the civil service, by departments?
2.	Were promotional competitions held in all eases? If not, what were the exceptions, and why were there any such exceptions?
3.	With reference to question No. 1, were any of those promoted persons who did not get the highest marks in the relevant promotional competition?
4.	If so, how many, by departments, and by what authority were such persons promoted over those receiving higher marks?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1. Number of promotions, by department, from January 1, 1950 to September 30, 1951
Agriculture	 618
Air transport board	 12
Archives	 13
Auditor General	 26
Board of transport commissioners 37 Canadian maritime commission...	4
Citizenship and Immigration ....	122
Civil service commission	  153
Defence Production	 19
External Affairs	 146
Finance	 599
Fisheries	 130
House of Commons	 10
Insurance	 24
Justice	 57
Labour	 86
Library of parliament	 5
Mines and Technical Surveys______	439
National Defence	 258
National film board	 3
National Health and Welfare ....	113
National Revenue	 872
National Revenue (taxation)	 90
Prime Minister's office	 7
Privy council	 11
Public printing and stationery

	18
Post Office	 1,503
Public Works	 180
Resources and Development	 276
Royal Canadian Mounted Police..	40
Secretary of State	 85
Senate	 4
Trade and Commerce	 482
Transport	 474
Unemployment insurance commission	 702
Veterans Affairs	 737
Total	 8,355
	J.J
2.	No; in cases of reclassification where only one employee was entitled to consideration, promotion was effected without competition; and in cases where the department certified that there was only one qualified employee or that an advertised competition was not necessary in the public interest, the civil service commission authorized the promotion, subject to the right of appeal on the part of other interested members of the staff.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



QUESTION AS TO HANDLING CHARGE

Mr. Argue:: 1.	Is the six cent per bushel handling charge for wheat sold under the international wheat agreement still in effect?
2,	Has the international wheat council dealt with the appeal opposing this handling charge? If so, what was the decision?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. The international wheat council has noted that the exporting countries will not seek carrying charges in excess of six cents per bushel during the period of operation of the present agreement, and will review the matter upon negotiation of a new agreement or extension of the present agreement.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Did the national film board, during 1950 and the first nine months of 1951, sell or lease, Canada Carries On films, produced by the national film board?
2.	If so, to what firms or individuals were they sold or leased?
3.	What was the price paid for sale, lease or rights for the Canada Carries On series, during 1950, and for the first nine months of 1951?
4.	What was the total cost of Canada Carries On series to the national film board or any other department of the government during 1950, and for the first nine months of 1951?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Columbia Pictures of Canada, Toronto, Ont., Art Films S. A., Brazil, South America, Brandon Films, U.S.A., Educational Sound Films, New Zealand, News and Specialized Theatres, United Kingdom, Sterling Films, U.S.A., Schmalfilm Zentrale, Switzerland, R.K.O. Pathe, U.S.A., Times Television, U.S.A., United Artist Corp., United Kingdom, Animex Haaslem, The Netherlands, British Acoustic Films, United Kingdom, British and Overseas Film Sales, United Kingdom, International Film Distributors, United Kingdom, Cite Films, France, Comptoir Cenemat Graphique, Switzerland, Films, Sweden, Victor Films,

Questions
Switzerland, Filmelve, French North Africa, miscellaneous rentals through the New York, Chicago and London offices of the national film board, miscellaneous outright sale of prints.
3.	The price paid for sale of Canada Carries On series during 1950 and for the first nine months of 1951 was $15,255.45. The price paid for lease of the Canada Carries On series during 1950 and for the first nine months of 1951 was $41,560.45.
4.	$283,502.02.
Name of Company
Montreal Tramways Company .. Montreal London and General
Investors Limited	
British Columbia Yukon
Railway Company Ltd	
British Yukon Railway Co. Ltd. British Yukon Navigation
Company Ltd	
Dominion Anglo Investment
Corporation Ltd	
Consumers Cordage Co. Ltd. ... Plymouth Cordage Company ..
Modern Press Limited	
Economic Investment Trust Ltd. Bowater's Newfoundland Pulp and Paper Mills Limited .... Newfoundland Export and
Shipping Company Ltd



INCOME TAX


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What are the names and head offices of all companies for whom remission of any part of Income tax has been made, since the first day of January, 1950?
2.	What was the total amount of the remission In each case?


Mr. McCann:: 1 and 2.
Location of	Amount of
Head Office	Remission
Montreal, P.Q.	$ 352,232.48
Montreal, P.Q.	3,855.31
	3,263.20
Vancouver, B.C.	11,007.48
	21,978.43
Toronto, Ont.	9,302.81
Montreal, P.Q.	161,219.44
Welland, Ont.	372,230.47
Regina, Sask.	4,809.55
Toronto, Ont.	11,173.86
Corner Brook,	
Newfoundland	941,084.83
Corner Brook,	
Newfoundland	5,421.56



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL BOARD


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: 1.	How many employees had the foreign exchange control board immediately prior to September, 1949?
2.	How many employees has the foreign exchange control board now?
3.	What is the total cost, direct and indirect, of the foreign exchange control board?
4.	Is there any restriction on the movement of capital into Canada?
5.	If so, on what basis?
6.	Are there restrictions on the movement out of Canada of capital?
7.	If so, on what basis?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1 and 2. In accordance with the Foreign Exchange Control Act, the staff required by the foreign exchange control board is furnished by the Bank of Canada. The number of Bank of Canada staff engaged on duties for the board was 461 on August 3, 1949, and 354 on October 31, 1951.
3.	The cost of administration of the Foreign Exchange Control Act in 1950 was $1,412,336 of which $1,183,987 consisted of expenditures
by the Bank of Canada for staff, premises, office supplies and equipment, and travelling expenses and $228,349 consisting of other expenditures made out of moneys appropriated by parliament. The operations of the exchange fund account in 1950 (which do not reflect the administrative costs referred to above) resulted in an excess of revenue over expenditure of $7,400,588 which was transferred to the consolidated revenue fund. The expenditures of the account included interest payments amounting to $7,377,884 on advances from the consolidated revenue fund.
4.	No.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	Yes.
7.	Movements of capital out of Canada fall into two classes: (1) withdrawals of capital invested' in Canada by non-residents, and (2) exports of capital by residents.
The principal restrictions on withdrawals of capital by non-residents at the present time are:
(a)	Except in the case of securities bought outright in Canada since the commencement

Questions
of exchange control and registered with the foreign exchange control board, residents of United States dollar area countries are not ordinarily permitted to sell Canadian securities in Canada and withdraw the proceeds by buying exchange in Canada or transferring Canadian dollars. They may sell such securities only for the purpose of immediately exchanging them for other Canadian securities. Any Canadian securities owned by nonresidents may, however, be exported from Canada and sold outside Canada to other non-residents.
(b)	The withdrawal of capital employed at the commencement of exchange control in a Canadian subsidiary or branch of a parent company or head office resident in a United States dollar area country is not ordinarily permitted; by a transfer of funds. Such capital may, however, be invested in Canadian securities which may be exported from and sold outside Canada.
The use of Canada's U.S. dollar resources for the purpose of enabling residents to export capital from Canada is not ordinarily permitted, except in the following cases:
(a) Applications are ordinarily approved for new direct investments where they are likely to produce exports from Canada or secure sources of imports and also applications to exploit patent rights abroad, acquire
distribution franchises similar to those operated in Canada and, generally, to establish, businesses abroad similar to those carried on in Canada by the applicants.
(b)	Distributions from Canadian estates to non-resident beneficiaries are permitted.
(c)	Charitable donations and gifts and loans to near relatives are permitted in reasonable amounts.
(d)	Residents are permitted to discharge at maturity debts to non-residents incurred prior to the commencement of exchange control or incurred after that date with the approval of the board.
(e)	Emigrants from Canada are authorized to transfer up to $25,000 in cash and, upon investing any additional cash assets in Canadian securities, may export the latter for sale outside Canada if they wish to do so.



PRODUCTION, INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL, ETC.

Mr. Gingues:: 1.	What amount of capital has been invested to date by oil companies in the province of Alberta?
2.	What were the quantities of oil produced during the years 1948, 1949 and 1950?
3.	What royalties are paid, per gallon, barrel or ton, by such companies, to the government of the province of Alberta?
4.	What was the aggregate amount of such royalties during the years 1948, 1949 and 1950?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Investment of Oil Companies in Province of Alberta, 1949-51
(Thousands of Dollars)
Oil petroleum, crude	
Petroleum refining and products Pipe lines	
Total	
Oil petroleum, crude	
Petroleum refining and products Pipe lines	
Total	
Oil petroleum, crude	
Petroleum refining and products Pipe lines	
Total	
Capital	Repair
Buildings Machinery Buildings Machinery
Total
26,975 1,537 1,868	9,573 1,502 386	215 69 17	1,933 1,167 72	38,696 4,275 2,34330,380	11,461	301	3,172	45,31433,886	9,189	294	1,682	45,051284	5,151	39	1,250	6,7241,339	316	35	135	1,82535,509	14,656	368	3,067	53,60040,639	9,681	242	1,984	52,5465,635	322	1,299	344	7,6001,124	572	30	120	1,84647,398	10,575	1,571	2,448	61,992
Note: 1949 Actual, 1950 Estimate, 1951 Anticipated. For earlier years, information not available.
(Mr. Sinclair.]

2.	Production of Crude Petroleum in Alberta.
Barrels of
Calendar	35 Imperial
Year	Gallons
1948		 10,888,592
1949		 20,087,418
1950		 27,548,169
3. Information department.	not	available	in	this4. Information department.	not	available	in	thisUNGAVA MINING	AREAS	INVESTMENT	OF



CAPITAL, ROYALTIES, ETC.

Mr. Gingues:: 1.	What amount of capital has been invested by the company or companies for the development of the Ungava mining areas?
2.	What royalties are paid, per ton, by such companies to the government of the province of Quebec?
3.	What amount has been received by the province of Quebec during the years 1948, 1949 and 1950, from such royalties?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1. One company only is involved, hence details of its operations cannot be divulged (Statistics Act, S. 15).
2. Information department.	not	available	in	this3. Information department.	not	available	in	this



PERCENTAGE INCREASES SINCE 1939 IN VARIOUS GOODS AND PRODUCTS

Mr. Smith (Queens-Shelburne):: What is the percentage increase since 1939 in (a) farm prices of agricultural products; (b) wholesale prices of agricultural products; (c) wholesale prices of manufactured goods; (d) wholesale prices of meat products; (e) wholesale prices of fishery products?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: (a) Farm prices of agricultural products, 210-2'; (b) Wholesale prices of farm products, 174-2-; (c) Wholesale prices of fully and chiefly manufactured goods, 139 -2a; (d) Wholesale prices of meats (fresh, cured and fowl), 219 [DOT] 5-;	(e) Wholesale prices of fishery
products, 175-8=.
1	As of August 15, 1951.
2	As of September 15, 1951.



PENSIONS


Mr. McCulloch:: 1.	Under the new pension plan providing pensions without a means test for persons 70 years of age and over, paid under the authority of the Old Age Security Act, will any claims be lodged against the property of pensioners after their death?
2.	Under the Old Age Assistance Act, parsed at the last session of parliament, enabling the federal
Questions
government to join with the provincial governments in providing assistance on a means test basis to persons 65 years of age to 69, will any claims be lodged against the estates of deceased recipients of assistance after their death?
3.	Under the new Blind Persons Act, passed at the last session of parliament and providing for the payment of allowances to blind persons between the ages of 21 and 69, will any claims be lodged against the estates of deceased recipients of the blindness allowance after death?
4.	What will be the position of pensioners presently in receipt of pension under the Old Age Pensions Act after it ceases to operate on December 31, 1951, with respect to liens which may now be placed against their property and claims for repayment which may now be lodged against their estates?


Mr. McCusker:: 1. Under the Old Age Security Act no claims will be lodged against the property of pensioners after their death.
2 and 3. There is no provision, either under the Old Age Assistance Act or the Blind Persons Act for the lodging of claims against the estates of deceased recipients. Some of the provinces may decide in their own enabling provincial legislation to make provision for recovery under circumstances which they themselves will determine: but no such obligation is placed upon provincial governments by the federal laws.
4.	The present Old Age Pensions Act has never required the provincial authorities to place liens against the property of old age pensioners. Where liens have been filed against the property of pensioners, this has been done solely under the authority of provincial law:	and it will, therefore
be for the provincial authorities to determine, as of December 31, 1951, the manner in which liens still in existence on that date are to be disposed of.



TEMPORARY POSTAL EMPLOYEES


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	At what rate per hour were temporary postal employees paid for work performed during the Christmas rush of 1948, 1949 and 1950, at Winnipeg?
2.	Was the rate at Winnipeg the same as rates paid in other cities? If not, what rates were paid in other cities?
3.	Will temporary postal employees be engaged for the Christmas rush this year? If so, at what rate per hour will such employees be paid, at Winnipeg?
4.	Will the rate at Winnipeg be the same as that paid in other cities? If not, what rates will be paid in other cities?


Mr. Rinfrei:: 1.	70 cents per hour.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes-85 cents per hour.
4.	Yes.
790	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN



MARSHLANDS


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	What was the total expenditure under marshland reclamation program, by projects (a) for 1951; (b) to date?
2.	What have been the total expenditures, by projects, to date?
3.	What is the acreage in each project, stating location and cost per acre?
4.	What machinery and equipment was purchased in each year, stating the cost?
5.	What was the overhead cost each year?
6.	What has been the total expenditure to date?



DAIRY INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, notice of which I have already sent him. Will the minister today, or at an early date, tell the house what measures he proposes to take for the protection and rehabilitation of the Canadian dairy industry?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, he did give me notice of his question. The only reply I would care to make at the present time is that there is on the order paper now a resolution which is the forerunner of legislation under which it will be possible to discuss that question fully.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, November 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cold-well.
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: On
Monday I was drawing the attention of the house to a suggestion which had been made by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin), and I believe supported by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), that on account of the decrease in the value of the dollar the value of family allowances had also decreased and that something should be done to bring them up to their former value because of the importance of assisting family life.
In connection with assisting family life, it should be pointed out, as my leader did, that housing is still not receiving from the
[Mr. Rinfret 1

government the attention which it deserves. Cities like Montreal and Toronto have had their populations greatly increased. Much yet remains to be done to see to it that proper housing is provided for the people living in those places. Thousands of students come to cities like Montreal and Toronto every year. These students have great difficulty procuring accommodation and the price which they have to pay is far higher than it has ever been before. All over the country there is need of improved housing.
Now, sir, dealing directly with the question of the cost of living for a moment or two, I am going to resist the temptation of drawing attention to the efforts made by the government to deal with this quesion. The speech from the throne said that the government was just as anxious about the high cost of living as the people of Canada. And we know that, because the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself, when he was in Washington on a very important mission about the St. Lawrence seaway, went to the trouble of getting a newspaper and looking at the prices of food in Washington as published in that paper. I could draw to his attention that he did not need to go to Washington to get a paper, because there is a paper in the reading room and anybody can go in there and see the prices of goods advertised any day of the week.
Take the Washington Post and look at the prices. If you do that you can compare the prices in Washington with the prices that are paid here in Ottawa. Yesterday I believe all hon. members received a copy of the Winnipeg Tribune. The management of the paper sent a man down to Minneapolis to check the prices of food and other articles, and to compare them with the prices which people were paying in Winnipeg. In the issue of November 3, Mr. Val Werier said:
It is difficult to compare prices on commodities unless you choose the same brands and this I tried to do when I looked into living costs of Minneapolis to see how they stood up against those in Winnipeg. In practically all the name brands I compared I found the prices higher in Winnipeg. This was true whether applied to ladles' nylon stockings or men's shirts, corn flakes or soap flakes, refrigerators or tractors.
I think that is the experience of anyone who has recently visited the United States. They will agree that, in almost 99 per cent of the goods that they saw there, their observation of prices showed that the prices are lower in the United States than they are in Canada. This article sets out a list comparing the prices, and only in two or three cases are they higher in Minneapolis. This morning I took the Washington Post and I compared the prices in that paper with those in the Citizen. In connection with beef, I did not

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne
see any tenderloin advertised in the paper, nor porterhouse steak nor sirloin; but with respect to the ordinary cuts used by the ordinary family the prices of meat in the United States were lower than the prices advertised here in Ottawa.
I am not going to deal further with that. I should like to make a passing reference to the statement made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), who was in the happy position of being able to visit Europe during the past two years. I notice that he Ls leaving the chamber. He did the same thing when I was speaking the other night. That hon. gentleman had the good fortune of going over to Europe to visit various countries to see if they could pay the debts that they owed Canada. There can be very little doubt that they all put on a poor mouth and told him how conditions were over there and how badly they compared with Canada. He said that Canada was the envy of the world because it had not introduced price controls. By accident I turned up a volume of Hansard for 1946 and I read a speech of the late Mr. Mackenzie King in which he said that Canada was the envy of the world because price controls had worked so well during the previous five years. The hon. gentleman cannot have it both ways.


Mr. Gibson:: You have some price controls in Newfoundland.


William Joseph Browne: We have some price controls in Newfoundland on some essential commodities.


John Lambert Gibson: In St. John's.


William Joseph Browne: I should like to make one other reference to prices. The Prime Minister was certainly very anxious about making comparisons, but he should remember one thing, and it is a very simple thing. Prices fluctuate, and sometimes the advertisers put in the paper articles that they know will be most attractive and draw customers to the stores. That is particularly true with respect to the price of eggs. It seems to be a futile business to try to compare egg prices. For five days there was a daily difference of 5 cents in the price of eggs here in Ottawa. On one day they were 82 cents, the following day 77 cents, the next day 72, the next day back to 77 and then up to 82 and down to 80. Some of these things are fluctuating from time to time; but in regard to the main items of clothing, hardware, house furnishings, and that sort of thing, all hon. members will agree with me when I say that prices are very much lower in the United States than they are in Canada. It is a great temptation for people who visit therebecause the legal limit is only $100 every three months-to bring in goods clandestinely.
For the remainder of my talk I should like to make reference to conditions in Newfoundland. Last year I drew attention to the low prices which the Newfoundland fishermen were receiving for their fish. As a result of the crisis that developed over the fish situation in Newfoundland, the federal government called for an investigation by the fisheries prices support board, and the provincial government ordered a committee to inquire into the prices which had been paid to fishermen. The committee which was appointed by the provincial government was headed by Mr. Bruce Feather, who was released by the federal government. He had been employed in the Department of Trade and Commerce. He brought in an interim report which the government said justified them in stating that 55 merchants had underpaid the fishermen, and that they were considering introducing retroactive legislation which would compel the merchants to pay higher prices than they had paid for the 1950 catch. I was afraid that the turmoil that was caused over this would prevent the fishermen getting anything from the fisheries prices support board; but fortunately the fisheries prices support board kept on an even keel and went ahead with their investigation. As hon. members know, a couple of days before the house opened the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) made an announcement that as a result of their investigation they were going to pay to all fishermen in Newfoundland the sum of $1.30 per quintal. A quintal is the weight we use for fish. It is a Spanish word meaning 112 pounds or a hundredweight. The federal government is going to pay that, as soon as they get the necessary information to enable them to pay it. They are going to pay it direct to the fishermen, and they are paying it independently of what the fishermen received for their fish. Some fishermen received an average of $3, some $4, some $5 and some received $9, or perhaps even higher than that. I am not at all satisfied with the bare statement contained in this announcement. We should have from the minister or from his parliamentary assistant a statement as to how this figure of $1.30 was arrived at. It seems to me the government said that the full worth of the fish was $10.10, and that the average price received was $8.80, which left a balance of $1.30, and that therefore the fishermen should receive $1.30.
However, I do wish to say this, that the fishermen of Newfoundland are pleased, and are grateful to the government for having come to their rescue in the 1950 season, and for paying even this $1.30. Of course some of them will not make money by receiving

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne that sum, because they received such low prices for their fish. However, it is something which the majority did not believe the federal government would pay at all.
This past summer, in company with my wife, I had the privilege of touring Newfoundland, travelling around the island on a boat operated by the Canadian National Railways. We went to Corner Brook, and then visited all the various outports along the coast of Newfoundland, up to Labrador, and down the east coast. I found it most interesting, a beautiful trip. The scenery is magnificent, and I would recommend it highly to any hon. members who might want to take a trip next summer. They could take the same steamship S.S. Northern Ranger, and make the trip around the coast.
I was about to say however that in the various outports I visited I saw evidence of work being done by the federal Department of Public Works, in the restoration of wharves. I saw many fine wharves built by that department. Perhaps I am a little jealous of the attention districts represented by Liberal members have received. It seems to me they received the lion's share of the moneys expended by the Department of Public Works. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) need not shake his head in a negative fashion, because I am satisfied that by far the greater portion of money has been spent in districts represented by Liberal members. That applies particularly to the constituency represented by the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley). In fact I believe that in the last two years about $3 million have been spent in that riding alone. Mind you, I am not saying the money is not well spent. Nevertheless the fact is that that amount of money is being spent in his constituency. In Bonavista at the present time a wharf valued at $150,000 is being constructed and at Carbonear in the constituency represented by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) another wharf valued at $150,000 is also being constructed.


Mr. Stick:: May I return the compliment by saying that I recommended the construction of a wharf in the constituency of St. John's West, and it is now under construction.


William Joseph Browne: I wonder if my hon. friend would enlighten me as to where it is?


Leonard T. Stick: At Arnold's Cove.


William Joseph Browne: I am very puzzled now, because I had recommended that construction, and I am wondering whose influence was greater.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Joseph Browne: I feel strongly about this. I visited the place with a Mr. Waveham, who carries on business there. I made an inspection and wrote several letters, and I have documentary proof to show that I recommended it. However, I am wondering whether I would have got it at all if I had not had the support of my Liberal friend from Trinity-Conception.
Last summer when I went around the island I noted a great deal of enthusiasm among the people. Fish had been taken in large quantities, and they were hopeful that this year was going to be a most successful one for them. Some of them complained to us that they could have taken much greater quantities of fish if they had had salt. This is a recurrent problem in Newfoundland, one to which I drew the attention of the house at the spring session, when I learned that some places were short of salt.
It seems to me it is necessary for some government, whether provincial or federal I do not know, to see to it that reserves of salt are available to be supplied to fishermen at those times when they are taking large quantities of fish, because the fisherman who takes these fish sometimes catches 200 or 300 quintals a day. It is a terrific amount -that would be $2,000 or $3,000 worth of fish in one day. Sometimes much of the catch is lost, completely, if they have not the salt. If they do not have it, the dead fish go into the ocean, and the fisherman has no return for his labour. It is something to which those in authority should give attention.
There was great enthusiasm in the country. As you know, we have down there a government led by a gentleman who has a reputation for great industry, a man who is indefatigable. He has travelled more miles in the last two years than all the cabinet ministers of the federal government put together. He has travelled by steamship, by train and by aeroplane-and if there were shooting stars available, he would be on them. He has travelled over the world, trying to introduce foreign capital into Newfoundland. But it seems the only foreign capital he could introduce was from Germany. He is assisted there by a gentleman who was once employed in the Department of Trade and Commerce at, I understand, $100 a month. The department, apparently, was unable to realize this man's great worth; but the premier of Newfoundland engaged him at the modest salary of $25,000 a year, as director of economic development, on the understanding that he was to initiate in Newfoundland one industry per month.

He has exceeded that, so that the premier has been able to announce that there are now twenty-five industries either started or conceived by this brilliant economic adviser, Mr. Alfred Valdmanis, who, in a book written in 1943 by Gregory Meiksins, was called the Quisling of Latvia and a nazi collaborator. That gentleman has come to the assistance of the premier of Newfoundland, who himself has been very keen on industrial development, the industrialization of the country. He has introduced Germans who have built a cement plant at Corner Brook to produce 600,000 bags of cement a year, at a cost of $3 million-[DOT] and supplied, of course, with German machinery. Indeed, all those plants are to be operated by Germans and are to be supplied with German machinery. There is one plant the government itself built to manufacture birch flooring, etc. I understand it was not with the approval of the economic director. This plant is just outside the city of St. John's, and has been constructed at a cost of $1,500,000. I have not seen any production from it yet, but I understand the man who built it has recently advertised birch junk for sale.
Other industries which are to be established in Newfoundland include a steel mill, and a machinery plant eight miles from St. John's, occupying 300 acres, which is going to employ 5,000 men, and which is to be the largest factory of its kind in Canada. There is a cotton mill to be built by the United Cotton Mills or Union Cotton Mills. I looked them up, but I could not find any record of them in Moody's. I did see a record of United Cotton Corporation, which makes cotton bandages for the Rexall drug stores. But I could not find the name of this industry at all.
There is to be a glove factory, a tannery and various other factories too numerous to mention. How are they to be financed? They are to be financed out of funds left by the commission of government, after it had been in charge of Newfoundland for twelve years. When the present government of Newfoundland took over, they had a nest-egg of between $40 million and $50 million which is now being used to finance these enterprises. The other day in the house I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) how much of that money was on deposit with the federal government. I was told it was none of my business. I was told that that was a confidential matter between the provincial and federal government who looked upon themselves as bankers and would not release that information. At the same time the premier of Newfoundland was telling the people down there that there was $20 million in the
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne federal treasury to the account of the provincial government. Who owns that money? Does the provincial government own it? Do the people of Newfoundland own it? If the people of Newfoundland own that money why is not a representative of the people of Newfoundland entitled to be told whether it is being expended? I feel that the government is not doing right when it refuses to give that information to a representative from Newfoundland. Last year they had no compunction about giving out that information. We were told in the spring that there was $20 million there, but I doubt very much if there is $20 million there today. If there is, it is certainly earmarked for some of these industries.
Mark you, these are socialized industries which the provincial government is undertaking to support to the extent of 50 per cent of the capital. I am sure our province will be a C.C.F. paradise with all these government enterprises which have either started or are about to be started. Such methods of carrying on industry do not appeal to all the people of Newfoundland. I have here the Evening Telegram of Friday, November 6, and I should like to read a paragraph or two from an editorial entitled "Bevan's Socialism a Model?" This newspaper supported the present premier of Newfoundland when he embarked upon his confederation campaign and has supported him ever since although it has become a reluctant follower when it found where it was being led by the nose. I would like my hon. friends to my left who are listening so attentively to pay attention to this.


Mr. Coldwell:: I do not think Newfoundland provincial politics should be aired here.


William Joseph Browne: This is a
most important matter for Canada. I notice that hon. members from Saskatchewan frequently bring up conditions in that province and I feel that I am entitled to proceed. The editorial reads:
Setting forth his political faith in a pamphlet, "Whither Socialism," Mr. Aneurin Bevan, aspirant to the leadership of the British labour party, holds that the entire economy of the country must be under the direct control of the government. In his opinion, there can be no such thing as a division between private enterprise and nationalization. What Mr. Bevan does not, of course, mention is that with the employers servants of the state, and with nowhere else to turn if they lost their jobs, they have to be subservient to their political bosses -the commissars, as they are known in the countries under communist domination. His declaration of faith reads:
"I regard it as an absolute prerequisite . . . that elected governments in the modern world should arm themselves with effective economic powers, because no democracy in a modern world is safe unless it becomes a socialistic democracy. There is no halfway house here at all. We must have a
794	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne
society in which the democratic institutions and the elected representatives of the people have their hands on the levers of economic power and where the massive movement of economic affairs are under central direction and control."
That is what is happening in Newfoundland, I am sorry to say. With the assistance of this man who was formerly called a Quisling we are having national socialism in Canada today. The editorial continues:
With the restoration in Newfoundland of the system of democratic government, by one measure after another which was passed through the legislature, with scant time allowed to permit the involvements of the contractual agreements thoroughly to be probed and revealed, the government has committed itself to national direction and control of the operations. It has provided the risk capital. In the house on Tuesday, it was stated by Premier Smallwood that the contracts into which the government had entered would involve in the form of loans and advances to breathe the breath of life into the various schemes an outlay of $25,000,000, and he did not consider that to be a great investment to provide 15,000 to 20,000 with employment. Of the factors vital to the permanent existence of the new industries-the costs of output, the markets to absorb them and among others, transportation expenses-nothing whatever has been revealed, and the answers to the searching questions by the independent member for Ferry-land throw little light on those matters.
It would almost appear that the government under Valdmanis tutelage is in process of putting into effect a system of economic nationalization not dissimilar to that expounded by the Bevan school of socialistic ideology. In view of the disconcerting results of its limited venture into the field of economic nationalization, the late British labour government shrank from further commitments in that direction . . .
Are we in this province moving out on the same slippery slope?
And again:
We do not know where the country stands because the information necessary to reach an intelligent opinion is not disclosed. The assembly is even refused to be permitted to examine the invoices of machinery for the factories, which as Mr. Cashin pointed out, was necessary to judge of its value to be set against government grants.
The premier of that province has called a sudden election for three weeks from Monday past and he says that the people will now have a chance to give him a mandate. The fact is that several of these industries have been started and commitments have been made in connection with others. Why has he stopped at this juncture like a rider on horseback in midstream? Why has he stopped to go to the people for a mandate? While the house of assembly was in session he did not want to disclose to his critics any of the facts or particulars about what had transpired up to the present time. The result is that the people have no information on which they could base their mandate. This gentleman will have to bear the responsibility for the ruin which he may be bringing upon this country by this mad venture into national socialism.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


William Joseph Browne: I would not be much longer.


Mr. McCulloch:: We should abide by the rules of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of unanimous consent I cannot allow the hon. member to continue. Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Drew:: Has the time been changed?


Mr. Croll:: The hon. member spoke last Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: I have allowed the hon. member five minutes beyond his time, but perhaps he could be given another couple of minutes.


William Joseph Browne: There is only one other thing that I want to bring to the attention of this house in connection with this wild experiment that has been taken on by this man who has won the admiration of. some of the cabinet ministers, although I will not say of all. They are familiar with his methods of skulduggery by which he introduced confederation into Newfoundland. One feature of this that I should like to bring to the attention of every hon. member is that they are talking of nationalizing the fisheries. That would be the last straw. This is the place where the federal government can do something to stop this. Last year I asked the federal government to assist in organizing the fishermen in Newfoundland as they have been organized in Nova Scotia, to inaugurate co-operative methods of carrying on their business, but very little attention was paid to that suggestion. The provincial government jumped at the suggestion I made and put it into effect.


Mr. Proudfoot:: Probably the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) would recommend that.


William Joseph Browne: I do not know where the hon. member who asked that question comes from, but he certainly ought to know that this nationalization of the fisheries is a serious question as it would mean making every fisherman a servant of the government.
I do not think we want to see the nationalization of any more industries of that kind. The fisheries are the most important industry of Newfoundland. They affect the lives of thousands of fishermen and their families, and they also affect the general trade.

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
I must thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness, and the members of the house for their indulgence in listening to me beyond my time.
(Translation):


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to overtax your patience because I know many members are anxious to take part in the first vote on the address in reply. Incidentally, I thank those who allow us to say a few words.
Philosophy teaches us that a habit is acquired through repetition of the act. I have sat in the house for sixteen years and my first speech has always been in French. Not through prejudice, not through narrow-mindedness, not merely to show I could speak both tongues, but simply because I felt more at home in the French language. Since habit is acquired through repetition of the act, since I have been repeating the act for sixteen years, I have acquired the habit and that is why today I begin in French my first speech in this session.
Recently we have had the visit of Their Royal Highnesses The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh.
As early as 1939, bilingualism had been honoured by a person of higher rank than Their Royal Highnesses, the Queen herself when, speaking over the radio at Halifax, she said "God bless you" and "Dieu vous benisse". The princess and the duke have also recognized bilingualism in Canada. Members of the house can find a good example right in our midst, since the first "Commoner" (Hon. W. Ross Macdonald) deemed it advisable to take courses in French at Laval university last summer. Needless to say, the people of Quebec city and of the surrounding district were deeply touched by this gesture. The university was greatly honoured by your presence and that of your charming wife. My constituents were pleased, Mr. Speaker, when you paid them a visit and spent an evening with our friends on an island, on what is commonly known as the "lac des Sept-Iles". The estate you visited was that of a former member of parliament, Dr. Desrochers, whom we all remember as a great patriot and a great Christian.
Mr. Speaker, today people think, write and speak in the French language in Canada because persons like the queen, the princess and yourself have set an example. Throughout the ages, French Canadians have learned to fight to retain their mother tongue.
However, there have been, amongst Englishspeaking Canadians, men who have recognized, who now recognize and who will recognize, I am sure, the value, the importance and even the necessity of both cultures on our Canadian soil. Just as long as there are such men, we need not fear, for these two cultures, whose diversity makes our people vigorous and colourful, will continue to exist, to sow the seeds of unity and to strengthen the unity of Canada as a whole.
I have had the great privilege of being sent to Geneva as Canadian representative to the world health organization. I sincerely thank the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). An interpreter pointed out to me that Canadians were recognized by the fact that, during the discussions in the various committees, they often spoke alternately in French or in English, according to the language used by the person who addressed them. I was really pleased because we were in a country that recognizes not two but three official languages: French, German and Italian. I believe that even if we were to write the word "bilingualism" in large letters on our buildings, and even here in this House of Commons, it would be superfluous because the tradition has become law in Canada and all recognize the two languages as official.
The example you have set, Mr. Speaker, has been followed in all provinces. In fact, when the Right Hon. Prime Minister was in Vancouver during his election campaign, the mayor of that city welcomed the Prime Minister in French, not to indicate his political affiliation but simply as an act of courtesy, and gentility. He spoke French to the Prime Minister. Following that example, the Vancouver junior board of trade requested the university to give French courses so that English-speaking Canadians could follow these courses and get to know Racine as well as Shakespeare. I could go on indefinitely. Sometimes, we are attacked by people lacking in education, culture and knowledge, and thus unable to understand the necessity and the value to Canada of our two cultures. It must not be forgotten that those are isolated cases and I am convinced that the population of Canada, in general, wants both cultures to hold a place of honour in our country. We have evidence of this every day.
I have been a member of this house for sixteen years. After the 1945 elections, under the leadership of the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. L. R. Beaudoin) we have instituted what we called the Wednesday luncheons, or "French" luncheons. On those
796	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier occasions members from all political parties represented in the house would gather: Liberals, Conservatives, independents and members of the C.C.F. andi the Social Credit groups. Everyone had to speak French, and this rule was so rigidly enforced that a former member's name was translated from Mr. Church to Monsieur Eglise. Which goes to show that we put all of our soul and spirit in those meetings.
Since 1945 many hon. members of English descent have been learning French and are doing their best to improve their grasp of that wonderful idiom. They realize there is a need for a dual culture in Canada and that the strength of our Canadian society is derived from that variety of cultures. At a previous session, speeches were made in French toy 15 English-speaking members who did not know a word of French before they entered this house.
It means, Mr. Speaker, that the good example has been followed-and we trust that this great culture will continue to grow and spread so that this brotherhood we all look forward to will flourish in Canada.
I am always reminded of words spoken by the Prime Minister when addressing the students of Loyola college in Montreal, last year, I believe, or two years ago. He said we should endeavour to foster in the world a brotherhood that would create better understanding between people.
Well, we seem to forget this brotherhood rather often. However, for some time now, we have had proof that while it is not fully developed or established, it is daily growing stronger.
Last week we had here representatives of several nations, soldiers who fought in Korea. They were greeted in the house with a tremendous ovation. All members were delighted that those heroes listened for a while to the debates of the house.
I have here a copy of the words spoken by the Prime Minister when he met those men. If more statesmen could speak and think as he does we would not have to deplore the chaotic situation in which we find ourselves today. The Prime Minister spoke as follows, as reported by La Presse of November 2:
We must have man to man relations on a basis of equality with all the children of our common Father. Let us show, not only outwardly, but sincerely, in our wills, in our hearts and by our actions, that we want to treat everyone as human beings having equal rights in a world intended for all.


Those words should be inscribed not only in books but in the hearts and minds of all men so that this fraternity which is so often destroyed may become an accomplished fact and that men may at last know one another and set a higher value on moral and spiritual things, for which the need is so great, than on nationalism.
Mr. Speaker, the behaviour of Sergeant Buteau in Korea must toe used as an example. I recall reading in L'Action Catholique and Le Soleil the account of an interview of a representative of the Canadian Press who spoke of the deeds of valour, not in the matter of fighting, not in the matter of the number of the enemy he had killed, not in the matter of the grenades he had thrown to drive out the enemy but rather in the matter of the great charity and fraternity he had shown not only to his brothers in arms but to the unfortunate Koreans around him, the fleeing Koreans who were running from one end of Korea to the other trying to escape from the enemy.
Sergeant Buteau has performed a highly charitable, brotherly and Christian act. In order to help those poor Korean men, women and children, trudging barefoot in the mud, and practically naked, he organized what we might call a Saint-Vincent-de-Paul society, as we have them in the province of Quebec.
He took up a collection everywhere, even among the privates, to buy clothes and food to alleviate the sufferings of the Koreans, his brethren in Christ, thus showing that he was doing it all out of charity.
I am convinced that Sergeant Buteau was doing this in a spirit of Christian charity, not to get his name in the papers. He was simply motivated by a desire to practise charity, to show the people of Asia-who unfortunately do not know us well enough and who, in the past, were not given enough examples of Christian charity-that western democratic nations also have a heart, know the meaning of charity and understand that a human being is not only a man who flees before the enemy, but a man provided with a body and a soul created in the image of his Maker.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what I wanted to say by way of thanks to those who, whether they are of French or English descent, are not afraid to be broad-minded with respect to the two cultures.
As a matter of fact, I did say that sometimes things do go wrong, of course, but one cannot expect everything to be perfect

in this world, in view of the diversity of opinions and points of view and, especially, of divergent interests.
The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) raised an interesting point the other day, concerning the uninhabited and untilled areas of the province of Quebec. This is a matter to which both federal and provincial governments should give very special consideration.
I will not repeat what the hon. member said, but I wish to deal with one aspect of the matter. Everyone knows that, for some years, the international refugee organization has brought to this country 60,000 refugees from European countries. This enabled farmers to obtain the help they needed from various countries such as Latvia, Esthonia, Poland, Italy, Germany and, in particular, central Europe.
Everyone knows also that salaries are very high in Canada, more so where there are industries such as the paper industry in my riding. It is very tempting for these young people to go and earn a salary of 97 cents an hour which is the minimum salary paid by the paper industry in my county.
As I was saying, because of a shortage of help many farmers of my district hired these refugees. However, if several of them did fulfil their contract as required, others could not so easily be made to realize that, under their contracts, they had to work more than a year for the people who had hired them. And yet, although they were very well treated *-1 made a personal investigation in this regard-many did quit. Of course we do not always reach our goal but such a situation is apt to cause trouble later on.
In view of the great number of refugees coming to this country, things might be less interesting if deflation, such as was experienced between 1930 and 1935, ever sweeps down on our country. It happens that these displaced persons make contacts with organizations from their country, especially in certain cities. After a year they quit the farmers they have been working for and who may have treated them well. They go after higher salaries in Toronto, Montreal or elsewhere. Urban populations are growing and the depopulation of rural areas creates a difficult problem. The outlook for city people is rather grim. If depression comes and city populations are swelled by the influx of refugees, bread lines will again be seen in
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier the cities. If refugees had longer contracts we would not have to fear trouble of that kind. They would have more time to adapt and adjust themselves to our way of life. I am convinced that more of them would stay on the farm where they would finally take the place of those who would give up farming, as stated by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska.
Mr. Speaker, I shall say only a word about the much debated question of controls, because I am no expert in the matter and because enough has been said about it by previous speakers.
To my mind the imposition of controls is not calculated to allow the consumers to purchase products at a lower price but simply to make goods scarcer. Controls are applied really to direct the productive capacity of the nation into specified channels, towards a result which is required by the pursuit of a specific goal. The government in this way directs part of the national economy so as to obtain the required results from the other part. Otherwise the government would become the owner of the economic individual. Where then would be that liberty of which we are so proud?
If we complain of heavy taxes, why demand the establishment of a system which would obviously make taxes heavier and more numerous still. Now, as far as preventing the manufacturer from fixing resale prices is concerned is it not a well known fact that the consumer's protests are often caused by the difference between the manufacturer's price and the retail price? Anyone here who has ever tried buying a suit of clothes at the manufacturer's price has been amazed at the spread between the two prices.
I am therefore pleased to learn that the government, after thorough investigation of the matter by the committee, proposes to introduce certain measures making it possible to establish a sort of price schedule, especially with respect to food prices, about which Canadian housewives complain so bitterly.
Whenever an inflationary or deflationary crisis occurs, the psychological and moral aspects seem to be forgotten. Unfortunately, priority is given to the material aspect, while the spiritual or moral aspect is completely ignored. We are living in an age of materialism, so much so that a wall of China has been raised between the material and spiritual spheres. No longer man is asked
798	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier to do what he ought; but he is allowed to do what he wills and what he can. Every conceivable problem relating to man is discussed, but the main problem, man himself, is forgotten.
Our economic system, and that of Europe in particular, had left a vacuum in the minds of men. In the first case, it had proven unable to achieve social unity. Then it made a pernicious distinction between the duties and the rights of men. All men had rights but very few had duties. Finally it had lost its emotional force because the basis of that force was utterly unrealistic. A new philosophy was developed which seemed to fill the gap, supplied an emotional basis, seemed to achieve social unity through force, increased the rights of men and then took them away by stealth and recognized only man's duty to the state and to the party. Having stopped thinking, feeding their minds on slogans, men seemed to believe everything and unwittingly drifted into materialism. Money took the place of principles. What about patriotism? Just try to find it in an emergency.
Mr. Lorenzo Pare, a Quebec newspaper correspondent, understood perfectly the psychological side of the matter when he wrote on October 17 last:
No, patriotism, noble feelings unfortunately, are not yet sufficient to put public interest above private interest when it is possible to do otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this sentence is a synthesis of what I tried to say a moment ago. We are patriots, Christians, everything you say, as long as our personal interest is neither involved nor prejudiced. Besides, the situation is critical not only from the material point of view but from the moral and spiritual point of view as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to refer to a matter very close to my heart, that is, agreement to the protocol calling upon Turkey and Greece to foe party to the North Atlantic treaty. I shall say only a very brief word on the matter since many hon. members are getting impatient. I have always been very frank, Mr. Speaker, and I must say I regret it has not been found expedient to ask Spain to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I speak with all frankness; my remarks are aimed at nobody in particular; this is my own idea. I believe that if Turkey and Greece must be admitted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it is just as necessary that Spain should join it as well.
IMr. Gauthier (Portneuf).l

laxity leading to the corruption of the better elements of our Quebec youth.
That is what I wanted to say. I have said more than I meant to. However I wish to quote the opinion of two doctors on the subject of alcohol. You may know of those two doctors who are, indeed, world-famous. Dr. Alexis Carrel, a great man, said this:
The general lowering of intelligence and common sense seems to be due to alcohol, wine and of all kinds of excesses and finally to a breakdown of morals.
This is a statement by Dr. Alexis Carrel, not by the member for Portneuf.
There certainly is a relationship between alcoholism and the weakening of intellect in a community.
Again it is Dr. Carrel who says that, Mr. Speaker, and those who make solemn statements about patriotism should try to find out the facts. They should show more responsibility and stop making such statements. They should pay close attention to our youth whose morals are being corrupted.
May I add the testimony of a person who knows the condition of a mind debased by alcohol. Let me quote Dr. Voronoff, one of the greatest biologists who ever lived. Here is what he has to say:
Certain writers have used alcohol to stimulate their intellectual faculties. Under the incipient influence of intoxication there comes to mind an abundance of ideas, sallies, eccentric remarks, sometimes novel views.
That is after the first or second glass.
Imagination is overly stimulated but thinking and judgment are correspondingly weakened. All traces of intelligence disappear with an increase in the intake. Excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages has played a nefarious part in the life of some writers. I will not name them out of respect for their genius which has lamentably debased itself. The abuse of alcohol debases man.
I am tempted to send these two statements to the interested party so that he may, some day, look into them carefully and digest them thoroughly. He may thus be apprized of his responsibilities in this matter and, possibly, may make some semblance of a move, at least, to prevent the moral disintegration of our youth and put an end to these highly nefarious doings against our good people.
(Text):


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in this debate. The house is very busy right now. Quite a few committees are sitting. One of these committees is the committee on railway legis-
The Address-Mr. Johnston lation, of which I am a member. I have left that committee to say a few words in this debate. The reason I did so is that I think the subject that I intend to speak on is sufficiently important to justify my saying a few words on it. The people of Canada are greatly concerned about it. I refer particularly to the tremendous increase in the cost of living. The people of Canada have been so concerned about this problem that in the last several by-elections that have been held they have protested most vigorously. They protested in the manner that is probably the most effective that they know. In most of those by-elections they have refused to return a government member to this house. I do not think any better evidence could be placed before the government to cause them to realize the seriousness of the situation. The government considered it so serious-because the evidence was presented to them in the form of defeated candidates-that they mentioned it in the speech from the throne.
I want to refer to that part of the speech from the throne. I know it has been referred to on many occasions in this debate, but I am going to put it on record again because I think it is sufficiently important and also because I want to make reference to it as I go along. In the speech from the throne the government had this to say concerning the cost of living:
The concern of our people over the rising cost of living resulting from international and domestic inflationary pressures is fully shared by the government. Every measure will be taken which my ministers believe will be effective in counteracting inflation without impairing our free institutions. The anti-inflationary measures already in force have checked the upward trend of prices of goods and services affected by their operation.
I will stop there for a moment because I particularly want to refer to the last sentence where the government emphasize that the policies which they have already put into operation are having effect. I do not think there can be anything further from the truth because the evidence is most clear that prices have been going up continually, not only since the government put those remarks in the speech from the throne but before that, and since the speech from the throne the cost of living index has risen until now it has reached the highest total in the history of Canada, namely, 190-4. Before that it was 189-8. It should not take any argument from members on this side of the house to convince the Liberal supporters-I am not

The Address-Mr. Johnston speaking of the government so much now- that something more effective has to be done than the government has already done to stop the spiral in the cost of living.
Hon. members generally should be very concerned about this. My mind goes back now to the debate that took place yesterday relating to retail price fixing. In my view that is not going to have much effect. I say that for the reason that I have been in this house since 1935. During that time I have had the privilege of sitting on committees of this house. I was a member of the prices committee. At that time we were endeavouring to prevent the rising cost of living. While we were sitting and searching into the reasons for prices rising, prices rose all around us.
When we were delving into increases in bread costs, the committee was prohibited from investigating the real basis of those costs, and that was the rise in the cost of flour. We know the flour mills had been protected by the government from the combines act. All the work the committee did proved of no avail. Thousands upon thousands of dollars were spent to bring witnesses before the committee, yet nothing was done. Prices were rising all the time. I am in hopes that the work this new committee will do, and the recommendations it will bring back to the house, may have some satisfactory results. Goodness knows the people of this country deserve some benefits from it. They deserve some relief from these tremendous increases in the cost of living.
In the paragraph from the speech from the throne to which I referred a moment ago the government states that methods employed have given relief. Let us examine this statement, and consider first the sales tax. That was one action taken by the government which, it was suggested, would relieve rising costs. That was part of the government's fiscal policy. Yet every member in the government and all the people in Canada know, to their sorrow, that the sales tax which was increased to the extent of 25 per cent had the effect only of adding to the already high costs. So we see no relief from that source.
Not only was the sales tax increased from 8 to 10 per cent, representing a 25 per cent increase, but when added at the manufacturers' level the tax amounted to a good deal more than that. Each one of those steps
added to the already high costs. Then there was the excise tax introduced at the manufacturers' level and which, when pyramided, amounted to a great deal more than the original tax.
Then there was the 20 per cent surtax. On top of all the other taxes the surtax was imposed. I shall refer to that in greater detail in a moment. Then there were credit restrictions, and with them I shall deal for a short time. In this instance the government's intention, I suppose, was to prevent people from spending money and thus have the effect of reducing prices. But the only persons in the country that this measure affected were those in the middle income groups. It certainly had no effect whatever upon those with incomes of $8,000 or $10,000 a year. If a man in that group wanted to buy a house, credit restrictions did not enter into his considerations. If he wanted to buy a car, credit restrictions did not enter into his considerations. But the man who was in dire need of a house, the man who was in dire need of a moderately or low-priced car was materially affected. And, mind you, in these days neither a house nor a car can be considered a luxury in any sense. These were the people who were forced to'forgo these necessities, owing to the imposition of credit restrictions.
Another factor which has entered into the cost of living, and which is a direct result of government policy, was that of increased freight rates. Those of us in western Canada and the maritime provinces felt these increases more particularly, because every time there was an increase in freight rates the greater portion of it was levied against the people in the prairie provinces and in the maritimes, leaving Ontario and Quebec least affected.
The effect of those freight rate increases was tremendous. I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of Monday, November 5, 1951, which has something to say on this subject. It states:
Another drive for higher freights.
If the railways can persuade the hoard of transport commissioners to grant their amended application (amended in an upward direction, of course), for an additional increase in freight rates, the ceiling will be raised to a level more than 78 per cent above that of the early post-war years. The latest request is related directly to the defence surcharge of 20 per cent on corporation income tax contained in the last budget.
Two points may be made here. The first is that the railways' action, if endorsed, would make still livelier the rat-race of inflation. It is not the unions and their higher wage bill enforced by the

Kellock award which are cited this time as a reason for charging more for freight, but the taxation policy of the federal government.
The second point is that these repeated requests for increased rates are always geared to the financial needs of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is accepted as the yardstick for the purpose. These needs include an allowance for meeting fixed charges and dividends, and also for a surplus, according to a formula applied by the board of transport commissioners. This formula has been the subject of attack by eight of the ten provincial governments-all but Ontario and Quebec, which have never been able to work up much steam over the subject of freight rates.
The time may come, if it is not already here, when the public at large-even in Ontario and Quebec-may wonder if the requirements of the privately-owned transportation system must automatically be taken as the basis for setting the price for such a service.
The reason I would direct attention to this article is the government's policy as set out in the last budget wherein it brought down fiscal measures which, they said, would combat inflation. I direct attention to this because, as a direct result of the government's budget, prices have risen. The 20 per cent surtax to which I referred a moment ago is one of the basic reasons why the railways have now asked for a further increase, claiming this increase as a direct result of government policy. And so it is; the suggestion cannot be contradicted.
When one realizes that if the railways are given their proposed increase there will have been an over-all increase of 78 per cent since the end of the war, one is impressed by the magnitude of this amount. Such increases are bound to lead to rising costs. That is why I said a moment ago that I have not much hope that the committee which is to inquire into the MacQuarrie report will
	Sales	Excise
Date	Tax	Tax
	5	$
2-11-46 	73.25	91.574-15-47 	82.03	102.5411-18-47 	86.95	271.711-26-48 	87.75	274.228-10-48 	96.56	120.701-24-49 	104.55	130.691- 9-50 	105.93	132.419- 8-50 	105.93	198.61(1951 Model Year) 12- 6-50 	110.36	206.924-11-51 	140.03	350.07
I should' like to refer briefly to this statement. On February 11, 1946, the sales tax on a Pontiac four-door sedan was $73.25; on April 11, 1951, that sales tax had increased to $140.03. During the same period the excise tax on the same car increased from $91.57 to $350.07. The total tax increase on that small, cheap car was from $164.82 to 94698-51
The Address-Mr. Johnston have the good results we hope it would have. Something more must be done. There must be a change in government fiscal policy.
The second outrageous feature in connection with the application for increased freight rates which, in turn, will increase prices, is that the Canadian Pacific is used as the yardstick. In that formula they have been permitted to include fixed charges such as maintenance, salaries, dividends and this 20 per cent surcharge, along with the surplus the railways consider must be maintained in order to carry on their operations. That leads to tremendous discrimination in private industry in this country. I know of no other private industry that has the right by legislation to fix its charges so they will provide for a surplus as well as dividends to shareholders. You cannot call that a private institution, when it has such tremendous legislative force on its side. No other industries have such protection.
In order to show how these freight rate increases affect us I should like to place on Hansard a table which I have received from the authorities dealing with the prices of automobiles, which have been mentioned during this debate. There has been a substantial increase in the price of automobiles, one of the essentials people must have today if they are to carry on their ordinary operations. May I have the consent of the house to place this table on Hansard rather than taking the time to read it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Edward Johnston: The table is as follows:
Total	Factory	Calgary Freight	CalgaryTaxes	Retail	Allow.	Retail$	$	$	$164.82	1,354.26	171.00	1,525.00184.57	1,516.00	157.00	1,673.00358.66	1,771.00	157.00	1,928.00361.97	1,790.00	157.00	1,947.00217.26	1,788.00	189.00	1,977.00235.24	1,933.00	189.00	2,122.00238.34	1,956.00	205.00	2,161.00304.54	2,023.00	227.00	2,250.00317.28	2,107.00	227.00	2,334.00490.10	2,307.00	227.00	2,534.00
$490.10. That created a substantial increase in the price of that car because of taxes alone. During the same period the freight on that car from Oshawa to Calgary increased from $171 in 1946 to $227 in 1951, and there has been a still further increase. I am just informed by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) that it has been increased to
PROVINCIAL LIBRARY]

The Address-Mr. Johnston $252, but I suppose that would be to Wetaskiwin. With that tremendous increase due to government fiscal policy how can you expect to have any material reduction in prices because of the work this committee on price fixing may do?
We may have some alleviation, and I hope that will be so. There is price fixing and I hope it will be rectified, but people should not run away with the idea that if there is some alleviation of price fixing that is going to materially lower the cost of living. The total taxes on that same car have increased from $317.28 in 1950 to $490.10 in 1951, an increase of $172.82 in a matter of four months due to government fiscal policy. The government indicated in the speech from the throne that measures would be taken which would be effective in lowering the cost of living. As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) has just indicated, this same argument applies to many things besides automobiles.
Those of us who live in western Canada have borne the brunt of these freight increases so we know what we are talking about when we refer to the rising cost of living. Not long ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was speaking over the air, I think it was during the recess, he advocated that the people should save more and produce more, that this was the way to lower the cost of living. Certainly we should do that, but the people of Canada should not be the only ones requested to do so. During the time the Prime Minister and members of the government have been asking us to save in order to bring down costs what have they themselves been doing? Surely they should be the ones to set an example. Just the other day it was indicated in the newspapers and also submitted to the house by the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Sellar, that last year the government had spent $70,000 for office space which they had never used. Just a matter of weeks ago the Prime Minister tells us to save; then we have the auditor general pointing out to the House of Commons in his report that the government has absolutely thrown away $70,000. Seventy thousand dollars may not look very large when you consider the colossal extravagance of the government, but it is a mighty lot when people have to scrape the pennies out of their piggy banks in order to pay the taxes the government is extracting from them. Mr. Sellar pointed out also where the government has spent $720,000 for new furniture. It is nice to have new furniture. I remember the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) saying to us last year that it might be nice to have these new things, it might be nice to have a new car, but we could not


have those things if we expected prices to come down. Can we expect prices to come down when the government is spending $720,000 on new furniture and throwing away $70,000 for office space which it never" used? Mr. Sellar pointed out also where the government had bought for an amount of $948,542 200 quonset huts which had never been used and for which there was no use beyond stockpiling. None of those items by itself seems large, but the total comes to $1,738,142, a substantial sum. Almost $2 million of public money has been wasted by the government on these three items. At the same time the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance make radio broadcasts in which they ask the people to save in order to bring down prices. What a mockery! What a farce! We set up a committee to deal with resale price maintenance in the hope that it is going to reduce the cost of living materially when we have a government who, by their very actions, are preventing costs from being lowered.
The next point the Prime Minister had reference to on that occasion was production. There is no one in the house who will not say that one of the very essential things in lowering costs should be production. It is; but when you have a government who by their fiscal policy discourage production how can you ever expect that is going to lower prices? It just cannot be done. Production is one of the essential things if we are going to have a lowering of prices. Mind you, there again the people of Canada have responded to the government's plea. They did save, they did increase production, yet prices are continuing to rise. The Ottawa Evening Citizen of Thursday, November 1, contains an article having a bearing on this question. The heading is, "Manufacturers' Shelves Loaded With Goods". The article reads:
Manufacturers' shelves were loaded with a record $3,451,800,000 worth of raw materials and finished goods at the end of August, the bureau of statistics reported yesterday. Rising steadily, month by month, over the period of a year, the inventories in August reflected a $56 million increase from July and a total advance of $899 million from August last year. A trade department economist, explaining the sharp upward drive in stockpiles, attributed the peak load to two causes:
1.	Natural industrial expansion resulting from the country's economic development.
2.	Anticipation by manufacturers of greater sales than actually materialized.
Let me stop for a moment. Why was there anticipation by manufacturers of greater sales than actually materialized? That happened as a direct result of the government's fiscal policy. If you ask automobile manufacturers to produce automobiles-I am only using that as an illustration-and then put a government policy into effect which prohibits people from buying automobiles, how do you expect

The Address-Mr. Johnston
the industry to continue to produce? You just cannot expect it to do so. The result will be that the industry will have to stop producing that line of goods, and that is exactly what they have done. The article continues:
All four major industrial groups-manufacturers of consumer, capital, construction and producer goods-shared in the increase over July, though industries producing construction and producer goods accounted for the greatest proportion of the month's climb. The stockpile of producer items jumped to $633,200,000 from $608,000,000 in July; construction materials, $276,800,000 from $263,900,000; capital goods, $420,000,000 from $409,700,000; and consumer goods, $2,121,900,000 from $2,114,000,000.
Consumer goods comprise the items where prices have probably climbed the most, or at least are more noticeable to the common people than anywhere else; yet there is a tremendous surplus of production. If what the Prime Minister tells us is true, namely, that if we increase production prices will come down, why has that not happened? We have increased production but prices have continually risen. The article goes on to say:
At the end of July, the bureau estimated the volume of goods held in inventory had increased 14 per cent over the 1950 average level. "Volume rose slowly during the last quarter of 1950 and the first quarter of 1951, and much more rapidly during the next four months," the bureau said. "At the end of July this year total volume appears to have been 16 per cent above the low point reached last November."
Well, Mr. Speaker, one cannot complain about industry too much when one finds that they have continually increased production despite all obstacles that have been put in their way by the government's fiscal policy. The government has had an opportunity to do something effective. In the speech from the throne government legislation was forecast in these words:
The government has received an interim report from the committee studying the combines legislation recommending that suppliers of goods should be prohibited from requiring or inducing distributors to resell such goods at fixed or minimum resale prices. You will be asked to consider legislation arising out of the committee's interim report.
The government had a report. They studied it and found that certain industries were causing, as they considered, an undue rise in prices. A committee had studied the matter at a cost of thousands of dollars. They dug up the information. The government asked them for an interim report. The government received it, and on the basis thereof the government then proposed to introduce legislation. It is unfortunate that they did not do so, but because of pressure that has been brought upon the government they decided it was too hot a potato, and that they would turn the matter over to another committee.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I have had some experience as a member of committees of the house, and I am afraid this committee will not be much more effective than other committees have been in the past. The other day the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) said that one of the reasons the government had decided not to place this legislation before the house immediately but rather to send the matter to a committee was because he had received personal letters from small businessmen claiming that such action would ruin them. He pointed out in particular that one druggist in his constituency-I think his name was Grant; I am only speaking from memory but it can be found in Hansard-had written telling him that if this legislation was introduced he would be ruined.
I do not put much faith in that because some members of the house have received letters particularly from druggists but also from others throughout the country, and in the envelopes of some such letters have been found circular letters from the drug supplying concerns asking the little fellows to write to their member of parliament and complain about the proposed legislation. Yes; some members of this house have received in letters from small druggists a circular letter from the suppliers and manufacturers of drugs asking them-


Mr. Thomas:: Putting pressure on them.


Charles Edward Johnston: As the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) says, putting pressure on them to contact their local member and complain about the proposed action of the government. Therefore when we hear the Minister of Justice pleading that the action now proposed is going to be in the interests of the small fellow we just do not put much faith in it. We know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), and have known him for a long time.
I believe the suggestion by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) might have some merit. He suggested a lowering of the tariff walls which, in his judgment, would cause an immediate decline in prices. I believe that is true. I do not think there is anything the government could do that would be more effective in that regard. I am not suggesting that we do away with tariffs, but I do suggest that probably a lowering of the tariffs on many items would be effective. No, I am not suggesting that we do away with tariffs, because they are an essential thing in any country. But tariffs should be used for the protection of a market, and should never be used for the protection of a profit. It would be a good thing to say to

The Address-Mr. Johnston
some of the industrialists in this country, "We will have a tariff wall so the United States cannot ship goods in here and absorb your market, but you must produce those goods at a reasonable cost, somewhere near the prices charged in the United States. It was never the purpose of a tariff wall to permit an article produced in the United States by the same concern that produces it in Canada to be sold for half the price in the United States. Under this administration, yes and under the Conservative administration as well, we find that tariff walls have been used for the protection of an unreasonable profit. This should not be allowed, and if the suggestion of the member for Charlotte were followed a lowering of the tariff walls would at least show some of our monopolistic industrialists that they cannot charge exorbitant prices to our Canadian consumers. I believe that would be very effective, much more so than setting up another dozen or so prices committees.
There are a great number of other subjects about which I should like to speak. I intended to mention old age pensions. Other members of our party have put our views in that regard on the record, and I adopt those views as my own. I would have liked to speak about veterans allowances and veterans disability pensions, but I have not the time. I want to say that those views which have been expressed already by the members of this party on that subject are my views as well. I desired to speak about the problems of agriculture, but the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) has gone into that quite thoroughly and explained our position. While I have not the time to speak about all those subjects I have mentioned, every one of those matters, agriculture, old age pensions, and veterans, is vitally linked with this question of the cost of living. So, Mr. Speaker, if I have contributed anything at all in the way of giving the government advice towards lowering the cost of living which would assist all those I have mentioned, then perhaps the time has been well spent.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I wish to discuss briefly a matter that is on the minds of most hon. members at the present time. I refer to the plight of the recipients of the war veterans allowance. As most hon. members know, the war veterans allowance is paid to veterans in need, who are aged or pre-aged or who, suffering a disability, have been refused a pension by the pension commission on the ground that their disability was of pre-enlistment origin, or that it was considered not to be attributable to war service.
In addition to these, of course, there are many veterans totally disabled but unable to get a war veterans allowance owing to certain technicalities contained in the act. The program of veterans legislation that we have in this country is good. I think we will all agree that it is as good as, if not better than, that of any other country. But while I say that, I should also like to mention that the War Veterans Allowance Act has been permitted to deteriorate during the past ten years. In other words it has not kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. I would say that today the War Veterans Allowance Act constitutes a blot on the record of this government. It has been bitterly criticized by veterans organizations from one end of this country to the other, by the Canadian Legion, the national council of veterans associations; and in addition it has been bitterly criticized by people who are familiar with the situation confronting the recipients of the war veterans allowance.
Some hon. members have said to me: "Well, you must admit that we have periodically increased the amount of the war veterans allowance." That is true. It used to be $40 a month for a married recipient. Then it was increased to $60 a month. In 1948 it was increased to $70 a month. But the question one should ask is this: Are the recipients of war veterans allowance today any better off than when they were getting $60 a month or $40 a month? If we allow for the depreciation of the dollar we shall find they are no better off, or actually not as well off as when they were getting $60 a month or $40 a month. I worked out what the war veterans
The Address-Mr. Quelch allowance is worth today in terms of the dollar at the time the veteran was getting $60 a month or $40 a month, and I found this. In 1939 the married recipient of the war veterans allowance was receiving $40 a month, in round figures. The cost of living at that time was 100. The cost of living today is 190-4. Therefore the dollar today is worth only 52 cents in terms of the 1939 dollar. That means that $70 today is worth only $36.40 in terms of the 1939 dollar, so that actually the veteran today is receiving $3.60 less than when he was receiving $40 in 1939. In 1946 the war veterans allowance was increased to $60 a month. At that time the cost of living stood at 123. Therefore a dollar today is worth 65 cents in terms of the 1946 dollar. In other words that $70 today is worth $45.50 in terms of the 1946 dollar, which means that actually today the veteran is getting $14.50 less than when he received $60 a month in 1946. In 1948 the war veterans allowance was increased to $70 a month. The cost of living then stood at 155. Therefore the dollar today is worth 81 cents in terms of the 1948 dollar. That means the $70 today is worth $56.70 in terms of the 1948 dollar, so the veteran today is getting $13.30 less than he received in 1948, in terms of real purchasing power.
So, while it is true that the actual amount of the war veterans allowance has been increased, nevertheless the veterans' condition has been deteriorating due to the spiralling cost of living. The Canadian Legion presented a brief to the special committee on veterans affairs on May 17, 1951. In that brief they made this recommendation, as it is set out at page 86 of the report:
We recommend:
1.	That the basic rate of our war veterans allowance be increased to $50 a month for single recipients and $100 a month for married recipients, and that the income from other sources be permitted up to $250 for a single person for a year, and $500 for a married one.
2.	That where a recipient is permanently and completely unemployable and has no other income, the W.V.A. rate be $60 for a single person and $120 for a married veteran.
3.	That consideration be given to the plight of children whose parents are on W.V.A.
4.	That W.V.A. benefits be extended to Canadian veterans living outside Canada.
It is interesting to note that this recommendation was endorsed by the national council of veterans' organizations, which includes all the other major veteran organizations in Canada. Those recommendations deal with the need for increasing the amount of the war veterans allowance.
On the other hand there are several other changes which should be made in the act, and which have been recommended by hon. members from time to time, In the past we
80$

The Address-Mr. Quelch have recommended that England should be declared a theatre of war in world war I, so that any veteran who served in England and who today has disability and is unable to care for himself may be eligible for war veterans allowance. We have also recommended that widows of imperials who resided in this country for twenty years, even though their husbands may have died before they had completed twenty years of residence in this country, should become eligible for war veterans allowance.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) has told us it is the intention of the government to set up a special committee in 1952. The question may well be asked:	Why should the veterans have to
wait until that time to get the amount of money that is absolutely essential if they are to meet the high cost of living and be able to live in a state of decency or, if anyone objects to that term, a state of wellbeing? These men have been penalized too long. Already we have dealt with a number of groups, and I would say the recipients of war veterans allowances had a right to expect that their case would be taken up before those of many of the groups who have already been considered, or whose situation is being dealt with today. It is true the government is going to take action to increase the amount of the basic rate of pension. We are glad that is to be done; but we feel that at the same time action is taken increasing the amount of the basic rate of pension the government could very well bring down legislation to increase the amount of war veterans allowances to at least the amount recommended by the Legion in its brief to the special committee on veterans affairs.
Mind you, their recommendation is actually less than the amount the war veterans allowance has depreciated, as I showed when I gave the figures of $60 and $40 as applied to 1946 and 1939. Some will say, "The veterans committee did not recommend an increase in the amount of the war veterans allowance." That is true. But why did not the special committee recommend an increase in the war veterans allowance? It did not do so for the simple reason that it was not allowed to recommend an increase. I am satisfied that if that question had been before the committee there would have been a recommendation to the house for an increase in the amount of the war veterans allowance.
I recall that when the terms of reference setting up the special committee on veterans affairs were before the house, many members objected because those terms of reference had been narrowed to the point where it would not be possible for the committee


even to discuss war veterans allowances. I recall, too, that the Legion and the national council of veterans' organizations, when they presented their brief, urged the members of the committee to appeal to the house to have the terms of reference widened. I recall also that several motions were offered to that effect, to have the terms of reference extended. However, those motions were voted down; and voted down, with only one or two exceptions, by Liberal members. As a result of the Liberal members voting down motions to have the terms of reference extended, they thereby denied to the war veterans of this country an increase in the amount of war veterans allowances.
It is my personal belief, and I so stated at that time, that had the committee asked the house to extend the terms of reference, the house would have granted that extension. Again, I am satisfied that if the committee had recommended to the house an increase in the rate of war veterans allowances, the house would have been willing to grant that increase, because it has generally been generous in the way it has treated recommendations from the veterans committee.
Some ministers have suggested that it is better to wait until the legislation regarding old age security has been implemented. Again I ask this question: Why is it necessary to wait for that? It means these veterans will not receive any increase until some time next spring, perhaps April or May. I say we could very well pass that legislation at the same time we pass legislation increasing the basic rate of pension. It could be increased by at least, we will say, $10 a month, along the lines recommended by the Legion. Then a committee could be set up next year to make a thorough overhaul of the war veterans allowance, and it could decide to what extent it might be necessary to make further increases or further changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Here is another point. Old age pension legislation does not help any veteran below the age covered by that legislation. Many veterans receiving war veterans allowances today will not be of an age to make them eligible for the old pension either at the 65 or 70 year level.
I have heard a number of members of this government talk in glowing terms about what we are doing for people in other parts of the world, for people in Asia who are suffering from want and destitution, for people in the areas devastated by war, but I claim that the first obligation of this government is to look after its own people, and I believe those in the forefront in demanding that right

are the recipients of war veterans allowances. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas):
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"Furthermore we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living by an appropriate increase in the amount of the allowance."


Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate on the address I wish to follow the custom of congratulating the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and seconder (Mr. Simmons) upon their excellent speeches. I do that with all the more pleasure because, like all hon. members of this house, I think they made an outstanding contribution to the debate. I want to thank all hon. members who have taken part in this debate and done their bit to clarify the numerous and difficult issues that face us at this time. I should like to say a word on the government policy of not instituting price controls at this time, and also a few words on certain problems peculiar to my own constituency.
With reference to the government policy for controlling inflation, I want to say at the outset that I was inclined some time ago to view with favour the obvious solution that if price controls worked five years ago, why should they not work now and why should we not put them into effect? However, after having read all the material on the subject that came my way I changed my mind and am now of the opinion that the government is following the right policy in not establishing price controls at this time. Having been converted to that point of view I should like to convert others.
The first point I wish to make is that hon. members should undertake campaigns in their ridings to enlighten the public on these issues and to broaden its knowledge of the facts that have a bearing on this problem; in a few words, to sell the people the policies of the government. When I say that I am talking not only to hon. members on the government side but to those who support the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), who has said that he is of the opinion that general price controls should not be put into force at this time. I think an important educational campaign could be carried on.
I practise what I preach. I was down in the Magdalen islands last week attending a congress of co-operatives which lasted from October 27 to October 31 and had the pleasure of addressing the people there assembled. I did my best to explain to them the policies of the government and why the government feels that price controls would not work if they were put into force at this time. I think
The Address-Mr. Cannon we should explain to our constituents that high prices are only the symptom of the disease of inflation. It is inflation that we have to deal with, not high prices in particular. Inflation is defined as being the lack of balance between purchasing power on the one hand, and goods and services that are available, on the other. That is the situation with which we are faced now. The classic example that is given is the glass of water and the dollar bill. You place a glass of water on a table with a dollar bill opposite it. You have goods on the one side and money on the other which are in balance. You add a dollar bill or two dollar bills and immediately you have an unbalance between purchasing power and production goods. The only way to re-establish balance is either to reduce the purchasing power by taking away two dollars or increase production by adding two glasses of water.
I think we ought to tell our electors what are the causes of inflation. Those causes have been gone into at some length during this debate, and I shall not be long in enumerating them. First of all, inflation goes back to the last war. As all economists know, wars always cause inflation. The money borrowed for war purposes is put into circulation by the government for the purchase of armaments and equipment for war, which is non-productive; and when the interest is paid on the loans or the loans themselves are reimbursed, that money is put into circulation, thereby increasing the difficulties of inflation. At the end of the war there was an increased demand for goods that had been scarce during the war, and that was a contributing factor. Inflation is a world problem; it is not limited to our country, as everybody knows. Reconstruction in Europe and Asia took workmen away from employment that would have added to the goods and services normally available in the world, and that in itself added to the problem. That was the start of inflation.
When the Korean war came along the situation was made even more difficult. There was some panic buying at that time because people thought goods would again be in short supply. Government buying and government spending as a result of rearmament were contributing factors. Unfortunately the money spent on war equipment and armaments is unproductive from an economic point of view. It does not add to the goods and services the public consume, but it adds to the amount of money in circulation and also contributes in its way to inflation.
Another factor is the great amount of investment that has been made in Canada. I was surprised to hear the other day that $4,500

The Address-Mr. Cannon million of foreign capital was invested in Canada in 1950. I do not have to insist on the point for everybody to grasp immediately that there we have another very powerful factor contributing to inflation. These great sums that are put in circulation increase the amount of money competing for goods and services. This is also a contributing factor because the new industries that are started have to find employees, and in view of the labour situation in Canada, which I understand is quite tight now, the only way to get employees away from existing establishments to work for these new industries is to offer higher wages. That again is a contributing factor to inflation.
Then there is the matter of transfer payments. Everybody is in favour of family allowances, old age pensions and pensions for the blind; but these social security payments, known as transfer payments, are also unfortunately an important factor in bringing about inflation because again you are putting money in circulation without producing goods and services to counterbalance it. I think if we put these facts before our constituents and try to explain to them the magnitude of the problem they will realize what the difficulties are with which the government has to contend, and that price controls are not the solution.
As all economists agree, the remedy is to decrease the money in circulation and increase the production of goods and services. I know it is not a popular remedy because naturally everyone likes to have a lot of money in circulation and also likes to work as little as one has to. But we must impress upon the people that these two remedies, although not popular, are the only effective measures that will control the disastrous inflation with which we are faced. The Conservative opposition, although they agree with us in that they are against over-all price controls at this time, have not made any very constructive contributions to the debate. They have talked in a nebulous manner about selective controls, but they have not told us what these selective controls are.
The C.C.F. on their part have come out frankly for controls and subsidies. They think we should go back to the system we had during the war years, clamp on controls and institute subsidies. Of course that is according to the theories of their party, and they are at least consistent in advocating such remedies. But I would point out to them that controls in wartime and controls at the present time are a very different thing. In wartime our country was more or less a closed unit economically. There was very little trade with outside countries and it was much
IMr. Cannon.]

easier to control our economy, but now because of the pressures of inflation that come from international trade that is practically impossible.
An example of the failure of the socialist policies of control of prices and payment of subsidies is what has happened in England. There they have attempted the continuation of price controls since the war; nevertheless the cost of living has gone up. They have paid enormous subsidies, with the result that the new Prime Minister of England, Mr. Churchill, as indicated in their speech from the throne, says that if the present trend continues England will be on the verge of bankruptcy. I say that is the direct result of the continuation of price controls and the payment of enormous subsidies to try to make controls work. All that Mr. Churchill has to offer the English people at this time is again blood, sweat and tears, as he did during the war. We do not want to have that here. We do not want our country to get into the position where we would have to make such an appeal to our people.


Mr. Maclnnis:: A lot of them have it now.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Pardon?


Donald MacInnis: A lot of them have it now.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I do not understand-have what now? On the question of the seriousness of the situation I should like to point out that the communists have said, and rightly so, that the best way to undermine the government of any country where they want to take power is to debase the currency of that country. If we do not take steps to control inflation, if we allow our currency to become debased, we are exposing the country to very grave danger. The government measures that have been taken to control inflation are first of all to reduce the amount of money in circulation by taxation, both direct and indirect. At the time the budget was introduced there was some discussion as to whether it was better to increase the income tax or the sales tax. The government did both. I think they were wise, because if they had put all the increased taxation on income tax they would have been in the position of taxing savings, while if you add to the sales tax you are not taxing savings, you are putting a tax on spending which is better from an economic point of view.
The government has also put restrictions on loans from banks and on instalment buying and buying on credit. I think that is an excellent thing because we must realize that if we allow articles like automobiles, frigid-aires and so on to be sold on long term credit under which one can take more than a year

to pay, we are adding money that is to be earned next year to the money that is in circulation this year to compete for goods and services, and that is a very inflationary pressure.
The second thing the government has done is to attempt to increase production. They have done that by putting controls on steel and diverting the use of steel not required for national defence to other uses that will increase production. There is also the measure of deferred depreciation which I shall not go into at length at this time. All the remedies the government has adopted, and which are beginning to produce some results, are not enough without the wholehearted co-operation of the people. When I say "co-operation of the people" I mean what the man in the street can do to help overcome the problem of inflation.
First of all I should like to make the point that people must not rely too much on the government to solve all their problems. They seem to think the government can wave a magic wand and solve any problem that arises, but that is not true. The government is only the servant of the people, and is put in power mainly to administer things, not to solve every problem that may arise. People should be more self-reliant. They should count less on help from outside, and attempt to solve their problems in their own way. This problem of inflation is one towards which everyone can contribute in arriving at a solution. They can contribute by producing more, by giving a full day's work for a full day's pay. The more production is increased, the more we will contribute to re-establishing the balance between money available on the one hand, and goods and services on the other.
Another means of making a contribution is to defer unnecessary spending. By deferring unnecessary spending we will lessen the pressure on inflation. The electors should use their influence to ensure more economy at the municipal and provincial levels. We could also discuss inflation with our people, explain what it is and what the remedies are. We could get the people interested by organizing a sort of crusade to fight inflation. We could get the people to realize that they can do something about it.
Another method of contributing, of course, is through savings. If we put money aside, that is a factor in fighting inflation. At this point I wish to read into the record some newspaper clippings which show that some newspapers which are not favourable to the Liberal party approve of the steps taken by
The Address-Mr. Cannon this government to fight inflation. I have here an extract from the Montreal Gazette of November 5, which says:
Inflation has been very thoroughly debated in the House of Commons and elsewhere during the last few weeks. Summing things up, it may be said that the government has made a strong case for not imposing general price controls at this time. The government's decision has not been easy. For that reason it deserves all the greater approval for refusing to yield to the theory that price controls are a sort of magic wand, with a deflationary spike on the end.
I have also, Mr. Speaker, an extract from another Conservative paper, the Chronicle-Telegraph of Quebec city. It says:
Controls is the cry of the leftist, and many well intentioned people think controls are the answer. However, controls usually lead to further abuse and only postpone the trouble even when working at top efficiency.
I have an extract from the Montreal Star which says:
Mr. Abbott's speeches this week were not lacking in courage. The demand for controls rises as prices rise, and the general public, in its urgent desire for stability, seldom pauses long enough to listen to reason. The Minister of Finance, however, sticks to his guns, and his case is a strong one.
Finally, I have two clippings, one from an Ontario newspaper and one from a western newspaper. This one is from the News-Chronicle of Port Arthur:
Governments should not be expected to fix prices. They have no means of determining what is a right price for any commodity and every price they set exposes them to resentment from some quarter no matter how hard they try to be just and fair.
This one is from the Recorder of Boissevain, Manitoba:
No one wants black markets. No one wants his pay frozen. No one wants higher taxes to help pay subsidies to make it appear that price control works. If one thinks it through, does anyone want price control?
Government policy, Mr. Speaker, which has been the subject of comment in these newspapers is already beginning to show results. At the last session when measures were taken to control inflation, we were warned that they would not show results for some months. Now I am glad to be able to underline the fact that the increase in the cost of living has considerably diminished, and seems to be levelling out. This justifies the theory of the government about the manner in which inflation is to be controlled.
I wish now to say a few words about some problems that are peculiar to my constituency. I would draw the attention of the government to the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, which is found in the statutes of 1948, chapter 61. Through this act funds are made available, in co-operation with the maritime provinces, to build dikes, breakwaters and other works for the rehabilitation

The Address-Mr. Cannon of marshlands. I suggest to the government that this act should be amended to make it applicable to the province of Quebec, a considerable part of which borders the gulf of St. Lawrence, and particularly to the Magdalen islands. This act could be of great help. I fail to understand why it only applies to the maritime provinces when exactly the same problems exist in the eastern part of my province. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), under whose jurisdiction this act is, that he should bring in an amendment at this session to make it apply to the province of Quebec.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in' closing my remarks I wish to thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chev-rier) for providing the Magdalen islands with long distance telephone service. Since last spring, we are able to communicate with the mainland by radiotelephone. In congratulating the minister on this welcome action I take this opportunity to make a further request of him.
In the Magdalen islands, telephone services are the responsibility of the Department of Transport. We have all the necessary equipment and material but, unfortunately, we do not enjoy round the clock service. Operations begin around 7 a.m. and stop around 10 p.m. On Sundays, operations last only a couple of hours.
I respectfully submit to the minister that the Magdalen islands should have telephone service twenty-four hours a day. We had it during the war and there is no reason why we should not have it now.
The equipment is there and it would only be a matter of adding a few employees. This would only require the expenditure of a few thousand dollars more. We would thus be enabled to extend to the inhabitants of the Magdalen islands that telephone service which they have been insistently and legitimately demanding. After all, in the twentieth century a telephone service is an absolute necessity; no one should be without it.
I also wish to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) for the work which he has carried out in my constituency during the past year. There have been erected a number of breakwaters which are of great use to our fishermen. Moreover a certain number of fishing harbours have been greatly improved.
I have a request to make of the minister. In the Magdalen islands we have no public buildings. To my mind we should have a
[Mr. Cannon.j
federal public building which would house all the offices of the different services necessary for the administration of the islands.
If the offices of the Department of Public Works, of the Department of Transport, of the unemployment insurance commission, of the income tax division and all other branches were located in a single building, the administration of public affairs would be made much easier in my constituency.
Mr. Speaker, I bring my remarks to a close with these few words in French and I say that it is the duty of members in general to enlighten their constituents with respect to the problem of inflation and to the means the government or rather, should I say, the house is taking in trying to solve this problem.
(Text):


Mr. Noseworthy:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Yes.


Joseph William Noseworthy: How does the hon. member explain, on the basis of his theory with regard to the cause of the depression, why we did not have a depression in 1945 when our supply of money exceeded our supply of goods by $6 billion, while we have inflation this year when our supply of goods exceeds our supply of money by $2 billion?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I did not talk about depression at all. I talked about inflation.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It is inflation that I am talking about. How does the hon. member account for the fact that there was no inflation in 1945 when our supply of money exceeded our supply of goods by $6 billion?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Because price controls were on at that time. But they worked then. You could make them work then, in 1945.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to follow the arguments of the hon. member who has just spoken, but I want to take the first opportunity to support the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) with regard to war veterans allowances. On October 26 I moved the adjournment of the house to discuss the urgent need for consideration, at this session, of the plight of war veterans in receipt of war veterans allowance, with particular reference to the inadequacy of the amounts they were receiving in the light of today's cost of living. At that time you, Mr. Speaker, suggested that this discussion could be carried on during the debate on the speech from the throne; and I am glad the hon. member for Acadia took advantage of the first opportunity to

move this amendment and to bring this situation directly to the attention of the house. I am sure every veteran member of this house will support the hon. member for Acadia in this amendment, and I am sure the people of Canada will support that amendment.
What are we doing in suggesting that our war veterans should have a larger pension at this time? We are simply saying that we believe these men are entitled to a fair share of the national production of this country. That is all we are doing. We are producing a great deal in the way of goods and services in this country. Last year the net national income was something over $14 billion. With a population of approximately 14 million people that means there is for distribution in this country a net income of over $1,000 per capita. Yet we restrict to a pension of $40 a month one group in this country who have done perhaps more than any other group to see that this national production is now available to us. We are doing that at a time when the cost of living has soared, as it has during the last three years, to a point where if the pension were to be adequate it could quite easily be not $50 a month, as is being asked by the veterans organizations, but rather $60 a month, if these people were to get just a reasonable share of our national income in proportion to the production we have in Canada today.
I cannot see how any hon. member can disagree with a motion like that. In 1948, when the pension committee met and our Pension Act was revised, we passed a supplement to the War Veterans Allowance Act providing for $10 a month. But that $10 a month required a second means test on top of the original means test under the War Veterans Allowance Act. In order to get that additional $10 a month supplemental pension a veteran must show that there is an emergency in the family, through ill health or some other cause; and that $10 a month supplement is paid only for a limited period of time. It seems to me that here is a group which we in Canada should surely be prepared to treat more fairly than we are treating them at the present time.
The veterans organizations in this country have been moderate in their presentations to the government with regard to what they believe the pensioners in this country should receive.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I am asking for information. I understood the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to say-and I want to be corrected if I am wrong-that the income of
The Address-Mr. Wright anybody who is eligible for the old age pension will be subject to income tax and that the war veterans allowance recipient was eligible for $1,000 exemption. I understood him to say that.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not see where that has anything to do with the argument I am making with respect to the war veterans being entitled to something more than $40 a month at the present time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He is entitled to $1,000 exemption.


Percy Ellis Wright: Under the old age security legislation, they can qualify for old age security and be paid also what remains of their war veterans allowance, or about $10 or $15.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, no.


Percy Ellis Wright: They also are exempt as far as income tax is concerned, the same as any other citizen in this country. But the point I am making now is that the veterans organizations in this country, in their requests of this and other governments with respect to pensions and war veterans allowance, have been exceedingly moderate. Their request today is for $50 a month for a single man and $100 a month for a married man. That is a reasonable request. They do not want it next year. They want it now.
I have in my hand an editorial from The Legionary in which I find the following statement:
It is regrettable that the government did not see fit to have a parliamentary committee set up to deal with war veterans allowance during the current fall session so that the increase, whatever it may be, could have helped to tide the recipients over the coming winter months when expenses are heaviest. The government having announced its decision, however, the Legionary can only express the fervent hope, which it feels sure all ex-servicemen and women will share, that when the amount of the increase is determined, it will be sufficient to enable these gallant old defenders of Canada's freedom to spend their remaining years in reasonable comfort, free from the fear of want or outright poverty.
The veterans organizations have been reasonable. Yet this government now proposes to leave this matter in abeyance until next session, when they propose to set up the veterans affairs committee to deal with it. They say the payments can be made retroactive to January 1. Even if that committee is set up next year it cannot bring in findings and have legislation passed in this house until next June or July. In the meantime war veterans are in the position that they must live on $40 a month, or a total of $70.81 if the veteran is married and qualifies under the War Veterans Allowance Act pension. I ask hon. members how any two people
812

The Address-Mr. Wright in Canada can live today on $70.81, especially when the cost of rent, the cost of food and the cost of clothing are taken into consideration? Why, it is just ridiculous to think that any two persons could possibly live on that amount of money and have a reasonable standard of living.
We are not poor in Canada. As I said before, we have a great productive capacity in this country. All that the veterans organizations are asking for, all that this resolution is suggesting, is that out of our total production we should be prepared to set aside a reasonable amount to keep the people who made sacrifices for this country in reasonable comfort in the later years of their lives.
I do not want to go into the arguments that were brought out when the war veterans allowance was first introduced in this country, but at that time it was agreed that these men who had served overseas in an active theatre of war were entitled to consideration. Remember, this war veterans allowance is paid only to men who served in an active theatre of war. It is not paid to everyone who joined the army. It is paid only to those who made the sacrifices and took the risks in an active theatre of war. Surely, after these men took the risk, and since we have agreed that because of this risk, because of their service, their earning capacity has been reduced by ten years, we should be prepared to see that they get a reasonable allowance, one we can afford to pay but which is still below the average earning capacity and the average productive capacity of the Dominion of Canada. That is all the resolution asks for. It asks that these people be given a fair share out of our total production, a fair share of our national income so that they, like other groups in this country, may have a decent standard of living.
Personally I see no reason why the $40 a month which is payable under the Old Age Security Act should not be paid to our war veterans in addition to the war veterans allowance. So far as other groups in the country are concerned, our civil servants and other pensioners, the Old Age Security Act provides that they shall have the $40 a month in addition to their pensions. The only argument that can be advanced as to why this should not be paid to the war veterans is that they did not contribute to their pension.


Mr. Knowles:: Neither did the retired
judges.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says "Neither did the retired judges." But the point is those men did contribute to that pension. In the opinion

of parliament when the War Veterans Allowance Act was first passed, they contributed in that they shortened their lives by ten years as a result of their service to this country. If that is not a contribution then I do not know the meaning of the word when applied to a pension or any other scheme. Certainly these people contributed to their pension, and they should receive the old age pension, as other groups in the country are receiving it, in addition to the war veterans allowance. If they were to receive that it would not be necessary to set up a veterans affairs committee in this house; it would not be necessary to point out, as we find today, the inequities and inequalities that exist in relating the war veterans allowance to the Old Age Security Act and the old age pension acts which may be passed by the various provinces to take care of those between 65 and 69 years of age. Any hon. member who tries to calculate the position of veterans in relation to the various acts which may be passed by the provinces will find himself in this position. He will need to consult a lawyer. As a matter of fact we do not know what the relationship will be because a great many of the provinces have not yet passed acts relating to the groups from 65 to 69 years of age. Each province will no doubt have a different act, and the veterans in the different provinces will find themselves under entirely different conditions. In some provinces it may pay the veteran to transfer to the Old Age Security Act and get $40 a month, or it may pay him to transfer to the old age pension under the provincial acts. In that case it would relieve the government of 50 per cent of their responsibility with regard to the war veteran, and transfer that 50 per cent to the provincial governments. I do not think many of the provincial governments are in a financial position to accept that added responsibility. I am sure some of the maritime and western provinces are not in a position to accept that additional financial burden. When this amendment to the amendment comes to a vote I hope every hon. member will vote for it so that something may be done not next year but this year to relieve the plight of those receiving war veterans allowances.
I should like to say a word with regard to the Pension Act. It is indicated by the government that they intend to bring in some legislation at this session which will increase the rate of pension paid under this act. We have had no indication yet from the government as to what the increase will be. The veterans organizations have asked for an increase of 33J per cent. I think that increase is moderate. As a matter of fact they are simply asking for an increase in the pension to the disabled veterans in the amount of the

Increase in the cost of living since the last amendment of the act in 1948. When the Pension Act was first brought into effect in Canada the basic pension was set on the earnings of the unskilled labourer in this country. That is the lowest wage rate paid. That was the basis on which our Pension Act was established. Therefore in asking for an increase of 33J per cent, and that the basic pension be brought up to equal the increase in the cost of living the veterans organizations of this country are not asking for something unreasonable. They could easily have asked that the basis of the pension be changed. It is not fair to base a pension to our returned men on the wages of an unskilled labourer. I think they would be perfectly justified in arguing that we should now sit down and discuss the whole matter of the basis on which our Pension Act has been established in this country. There are not as many unskilled labourers in Canada today as there were back in the days when the Pension Act was instituted. More of our workers are becoming skilled labourers, and the wages of skilled labourers are much greater than they were back in the 1920's when the Pension Act was enacted. They would have been perfectly justified, I say, in placing before this government a request that the basis of our Pension Act should be changed and the pension itself greatly increased. But they have asked only for 33J per cent, and I hope when the government brings down its legislation in this matter it will provide for 33J per cent. I can assure them that if it does not, they will hear about it, not only from veteran organizations across the country but from many other organizations. It is a reasonable request, and one which should be granted without quibbling.
Therefore I would say, in relation to the amendment, that we should give it our wholehearted support. We should endeavour to see that legislation is brought down at this session to increase the war veterans allowance, to at least meet the request of the Canadian Legion in this matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would the hon. member mind reading it again?


Percy Ellis Wright: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) was this:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"Furthermore we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living by an appropriate increase in the amount of the allowance."


Mr. J. N. Corry (Perth):: Mr. Speaker,
upon rising to speak at this time I wish first to express, on behalf of the people of my
The Address-Mr. Corry constituency, a note of gratification and appreciation of the visit of Their Royal Highnesses, The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh. I regret that my constituency was not honoured by the personal appearance of Their Royal Highnesses, but we share the delight which has been expressed by many hon. members because of the excellent reception and the splendid visit the people of Canada have enjoyed. It is particularly significant that the tour was undertaken at this time, in the light of the condition of health of His Majesty. We join in the fervent prayer and earnest hope that he will soon be restored to perfect health.
With other hon. members I wish to join in congratulating the mover of the address in reply, the hon. member for Beauhamois (Mr. Cauchon). I was indebted to the translation of his speech for my knowledge of what is contained therein. I am sure, judging from the smaller portion of his remarks delivered in the English language, that he is as eloquent in that language as in his native tongue. The hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons), to whom I also extend congratulations, gave us a thrilling word picture of the great northern constituency he represents, that great section of our country which possesses untold resources not yet developed. Associated with him in emphasizing the possibilities of that vast domain was the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray). His speech was calculated to arouse the pioneer spirit which, to a great extent, has lain dormant in us in recent years. Both these speeches serve to emphasize the great need for more population in Canada. In this connection my attention was drawn a few weeks ago to a statement made by a distinguished American who is serving as a member of a royal commission in Canada. He is reported to have said that Canada must become one continuous home, that neighbours must be able to shake hands with each other all across the country.
All hon. members realize that life in the outposts of the nation is rigorous. It is no place for those who seek a life of ease and luxury. It is a challenge to those who are strong and resourceful. Our pioneer forefathers possessed that spirit, and to them we are indebted for the land in which we live. Their resourcefulness and spirit of determination overcame obstacles which those made of weaker stuff would have found it impossible to surmount.
To bring about the great expansion so necessary in our nation we are obliged to depend not only upon people in our own land, but upon those from other countries. The

The Address-Mr. Corry Department of Citizenship and Immigration is to be commended for its efforts along that line. There are people in other lands who are anxious to make a new start in a new land, but under different conditions; and we must assist them to do so. It is important that they leave behind them the prejudices and hatreds of their native lands and start anew. I regret that there is a tendency on the part of some people who come to our shores to gravitate to those centres where they may establish communities, where they may speak their own language and follow the customs they followed in their native lands. This, I believe, is to be deplored. Most of these people are capable of becoming good Canadians, and every possible opportunity ought to be given them to learn the language and acquaint themselves with the customs of our country. Many of these people from Europe come as agriculturists; but it is regrettable that a number of them spend only a short time on the farms. They are lured by prospects of higher wages and shorter working hours in the cities. Apparently industry is able to engage them; but their departure from the farms is unfortunate. I believe the Department of Citizenship and Immigration ought to be very firm, and have them complete their contracts. I think they are obliged to stay a year. My personal view is that this term ought to be extended, and that they ought to be required to put in more than one year of service on the farm.
Like many other hon. members I have been disappointed in the number of immigrants coming from Great Britain. I believe there are thousands of people over there who would gladly come to Canada, were it possible for them to bring their financial resources, or at least a part of those resources, with them. I am hopeful that the new government in Britain will be more sympathetic and will permit those people to take more of their capital with them. I believe this government ought to give more consideration to advancing financial help to prospective citizens, against the security of their holdings in Britain. Britain has suffered tremendous loss in manpower and wealth through the ravages of two world wars. She lost a generation which would have guided the nation in these critical times. Loss of her overseas possessions and of domestic wealth is being keenly felt at the present time. In spite of all, the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish still possess the determination and strength of character which we consider essential in our land.
The constituency I have the honour to represent lies in the great fertile section of western Ontario. It produces a large volume

of dairy products, bacon, hog products, poultry products and beef. It practises a livestock economy, sound in structure and permanent in nature. I regret that there has been a decline in the production of some of these products, particularly those originating on the dairy farms. Because of the disappointing returns for cheese and cream a year ago, many farmers have altered their farming operations and abandoned their efforts along that line. They are now turning to other means of operating their farms. Some have turned to -the production of beef cattle; some have gone into other cash crops. The nature of our soil is such that a livestock economy is sounder than any other, and I think every effort ought to be made to preserve it.
In the last few days I have received a great number of cards from dairy producers in my riding urging that the dairy farmer be protected against the importation of cheap vegetable oils used in the manufacture of imitation dairy products. It may be difficult for some hon. members to understand why objection should be taken to the importation of the products of tropical or semi-tropical lands which are used in the manufacture of wholesale foods. Farmers as a class are very intelligent people. They know that many of the things which enter into the cost of production on the farm -come into this country under substantial tariffs. They know also that the producers of cheap vegetable oils in semi-tropical and tropical countries provide a market for only a small part of our natural or manufactured products. They know also that the prices of dairy products used in computing the cost of living are quite low. Wages and salaries of the purchasers have risen to a much greater extent than have the prices of dairy products. In this connection I was interested in reading in the Ottawa Journal of Saturday, October 27, an account of an address given by Mr. W. Frank Jones, president of the Borden Company, to the Ontario agricultural college alumni association on October 26. This reads in part:
"Of the 13 major dairying countries of the world, Canada is the only country which showed an overall decline in milk production between the year 1948 and 1950," stated Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones attributed the serious decline in the dairy industry to "the relatively higher returns from other types of farming such as beef cattle, grains, hogs, poultry, and others; the relatively onerous nature of dairying making it increasingly difficult to obtain or retain the farm labour required; the competitive impact of substitutes for dairy products manufactured from imported vegetable oils, and, contrary to the general impression among hard pressed consumers, the relatively low consumer prices for dairy products."
Mr. Jones said that "the number of milk cows on Canadian farms as at June 1, 1951, reached the lowest point in 20 years-this in face of a human population increase of 2J million in the past eight years alone."

"The production of milk has declined well over a billion pounds since the end of the war and it is expected that, despite the most favourable farming conditions this year, 1951 production will be the lowest since 1949."
"The production of milk per capita has declined from 1,509 pounds in 1942 to less than 1,200 pounds estimated for this year."
"The annual production of butter has declined more than 49 million pounds during the past three years alone. This is the lowest production on record in 20 years; the production of cheese, at one time our biggest export commodity, has dropped from 189 million pounds in 1945 to less than 100 million this year; the production of fluid milk has not been sufficient to meet the year-round requirements of a large number of city markets, necessitating the reconstitution of milk from manufactured products. This shortage of fluid milk will become progressively worse unless the over-all decline is halted."
He stated that the average price of milk in Canada had gone up only 78 per cent as compared with an increase in the over-all food index of 159 per cent.
In view of that statement by an expert in dairy matters it is not surprising that those who are engaged in dairy production are gravely concerned. For over half a century dairying has been the foundation of rural prosperity, and anything which imperils its future is of great concern not only to farmers but to the urban dwellers who are dependent to a great extent upon the well-being of agriculture.
Another reason for the decline in the production of milk products is the shortage and uncertainty of farm labour. I have already mentioned the fact that many of those who come to Canada stay on the farms only a short time, leaving farm employment for shorter working hours and higher wages in industry. Another factor which is contributing to the decline in the production on livestock farms is the fact that farmers as a class are becoming aged and there are not enough young men in position to step into their places. I have stated already some of the reasons why young men are attracted away from the farm. The prospect of high wages, shorter working hours, holidays with pay and free week ends have been attractive, but another reason is the greatly increased cost of getting a start on a farm. Mechanization has been accepted and is rapidly replacing the methods formerly used. It is efficient, but it has added substantially to the amount required by a young man to make a start. I was interested in the observations of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert), and I am of the opinion that some consideration ought to be given to his suggestions. By that I mean there should be a reduction in the rate of interest on money advanced to give farmers a start. In spite of the great industrial development which has taken place in the
The Address-Mr. Corry last decade I am still convinced that agriculture is the basic industry in our country and as such is entitled to earnest consideration.
A week ago Saturday it was my privilege to go to Camp Borden with other hon. members at the invitation of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). It was a most interesting tour. In the short time we were able to spend there we were shown a great deal. What impressed me more than anything else was the efficient manner in which the men are being trained. Not only are they being trained to be capable and efficient soldiers and in the use of mechanical equipment; they are also learning trades which will be of value to them when they return to civilian life. I was made keenly aware of the great change that has taken place in training methods since the days of world war I.
It was announced that this special session would be called to deal with old age security, among other things. It was my privilege to serve as a member of that committee, the first I ever had the privilege of serving on, and I want to express my pleasure at having had that privilege. I can assure other members of the house that every member of that committee devoted a great deal of time and thought to the question. I should also like to pay tribute to those individuals and organizations who, by way of brief or personal presentation, gave us their views. I believe the legislation before the house will meet the approval of most of the people of this nation. Thoughts have been expressed that the provision of old age security on the scale envisaged will contribute to a lack of thrift. I have always held the opposite opinion. I believe that as an addition to the savings of a lifetime it will be greatly appreciated, and will contribute to more thriftiness on the part of our older citizens. I am sure they will not forsake the habit of thrift which they have practised for many years.
I was delighted to hear the announcement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) that the government intends to increase the basic rate of disability pension. In company with many other members of the house I feel sure that announcement will be received with approval.
I wish to draw the attention of the house to one other matter having to do with the urban sections of my constituency. We have one city and some small towns which are capable of engaging in the production of defence materials. A great deal has been said in the house about the merits of decentralization, and with those statements I agree. Whether our future be peaceful or otherwise,

Business of the House I feel it is in the interests of the country that we decentralize industry to as great an extent as possible. I hope the Department of Defence Production, if it is within its power, will use its influence to allot contracts for defence materials to as many as possible of the smaller places throughout the country.
On motion of Mr. Courtemanche the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we will resume the debate on Bill No. 13, an act to provide for old age security. Then we will
take up the following resolutions: That in the name of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys concerning the Canada Lands Surveys Act; the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour concerning government annuities. If we have time, we will also take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to an agricultural products board.
At 6.15 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.

Thursday, November 8, 1951